![]() | 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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
How many episodes does a series need to have before an episode list can be split into its own page? I've had the list of SheZow episodes episodes merged into the main article by CAWylie a while ago on the grounds that the main article was too short, but in my opinion this only makes it look worse. It lists 52 segments (of 26 episodes) individually, which makes for quite a long list. Not to mention we have featured episode lists like the list of Awake episodes which only consists of a season of twelve episodes. What's the limit here? 23W ( talk · stalk) 01:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI to all: MSN has a new design, and existing references like http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/?ipp=40 at Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn may not work any longer. Gaak! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Could I get a few opinions about the order of the stars in TV series infobox at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Starring_order_in_Infobox. The statement that: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" seems clear to me, but one editor doesn't want to add the new people at the end. I think the policy should be adhered to for consistency unless there is justification and a consensus to change. AbramTerger ( talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move request is still ongoing. If you like, you can relist the discussion; see WP:RM#Relisting for instructions. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposal is discussed; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No, not really. There is a content dispute at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to have a lot of active editors so I'm seeking wider input. The relevant discussion is at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Content dispute - October 2014. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in weighing in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, just a heads-up that I've had some run-ins with a now indeffed user, Avenger2015 who keeps adding unsourced and redundant cast information in articles typically related to children's television. Typically if a main article has a list of characters, or even a unique LoC article, the user will (usually over the course of one or two dozen consecutive edits) add a litany of names/roles. The lists are indiscriminate and often include presumably non-notable roles like Raccoon #4 or Man #2. So if you see cast lists pop up, you might want to take a look to see if there is already a character list. Here are 23 sample edits from Avenger2015. 16 edits from IP 98.24.156.14 and 17 edits from new user Speedball1988, whom I suspect of being a sock of Avenger. The new user repeats the same edit summary in each of his edit, which is a new affect. The user almost never speaks. The first time Avenger spoke was after his third trip to ANI. My hypothesis is that this is another incarnation of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal. If you notice any new socks, the SPI report is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avenger2015. Danke, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Television articles that would be affected by this action are these:
If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Television's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently created Category:Television episodes in multiple parts for... episodes that are in multiple parts, but I'm not sure if this was appropriate or not anymore. Would it be helpful to anyone to have this? 23W ( talk · stalk · pend) 00:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Could someone from Wikiproject Television take a look at this edit and see if the sources cited are OK and if this type of information is something typically added to article's like this. As I posted at Talk:List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Gareth if cited by third party reliable sources then it's probably OK; One of the sources, however, appears to be from an interviews so I'm not sure if that's a problem per WP:PRIMARY. Also, I am a little concerned by the wording "It is rumored ..." even if it's cited. Anyway, I don't have lots of experience with these types of articles and since it's listed as being under this project, I thought I'd ask for feedback here. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 11:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Earlier last week, I had redone the timelines of housewives for each of The Real Housewives articles in a style that I thought was more clear and visually appealing that the original version. I had been reverted a couple times before I supposedly came to a compromise with another editor who was working on the tables, although they unexpectedly went back and reverted the tables to the original versions again. Instead of reverting them myself and running the risk of an edit war, I would like to reach a consensus here as to which style is preferable: WikiRedactor ( talk) 21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A little bit of background here, at least as far as I've been able to determine. It seems that WikiRedactor has been working on the articles for some time, and had updated the tables periodically, but there came a time when he had a minor dispute with Mgaisser123 over the tables. They had a discussion and came to an agreement. However, since August 2014 Acpurdy has been reverting attempts to change the tables, [2] and he hasn't been involved in the discussions. He's continued to revert, right up until today. [3] I've finally managed to engage him in discussion and his rationale is essentially "because it is the one that has been there the longest, for years". [4] Despite the outcome of the RfC, he seems to be a hurdle that needs to be overcome before any improved table can be implemented. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Any feedback would be appreciated! J Milburn ( talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Son of the Bronx 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/Son of the Bronx 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. 23W 00:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at talk:Futurama#Original run as to what should go in first_aired and last_aired for this show with a large time gap between some of the seasons. See also Category:Television series revived after cancellation for shows of a similar sort. This may impact the instructions at Template:Infobox television as the desire is to do something that goes against the existing instructions for attribute use. It may also lead to modifications of that template to incorporate the concept of large time gaps in the initial run. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Every time I click on a link to ToonZone's forum, (usually the forum component, but presumably some pages on the main site as well) my antivirus software (Avast) dings and warns "Threat detected". This has been going on for years. Anybody know anything about this? My thinking is that if ToonZone's forums are running malicious software, we probably shouldn't include them at Wikipedia for any reason, which might mean adding them to the blacklist. Here's an example: I've redacted the "Toonzone". www.(Redacted).net/forums/nicktoons-forum/229052-international-nickelodeon-thread-59.html. Also, I'm not sure where else to mention this--Village Pump Technical? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Television.
I looked at a few tv-series articles, and it seems that they generally have imdb under external links, but not RT. Is there any general reason I shouldn´t add RT as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, so for a while I was dealing with a disruptive user, Avenger2015, who kept adding extensive cast lists that duplicated existing character lists. I mentioned him here a short while ago. He's resorted to sockpuppetry, which is disappointing. Anyhow, at Green Lantern: The Animated Series and Transformers: Animated (articles that Avenger and at least one of his suspected socks has edited at, I notice there is a list of characters, but there is also an extensive list of voice cast/additional voices. Now typically I would remove the additional voices, but the cast list was in the article first, and it is sourced. I'm not quite sure what I should do here. Delete the Characters list? That still leaves the problem that many of the additional voices may not be noteworthy, and thus has become an indiscriminate list. And frankly I find the "Character (portrayed by Actor) - Description" format more useful than a straight cast list. Thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The naming and scope of "List of Doctor Who serials" is under discussion, see talk:List of Doctor Who serials -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 05:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
We've modified MOS:TV to indicate that adding future years in section headings is inappropriate, so do we think that adding season articles to Category:2015 television seasons is also inappropriate? As of right now there are 45 articles in the category despite not a single episode having aired in 2015. This seems inconsistent with what we've aimed at with WP:TVUPCOMING. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in, but I believe this is a related question. What about Category:2015 television series debuts, which contains categories like Category:2015 American television series debuts and Category:2015 British television programme debuts, etc.? There are currently 40 articles using these categories. Should these categories be empty until a series actually premieres? It seems to me that is how we did it in the past. -- Logical Fuzz ( talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently, at lists like 2014–15 United States network television schedule#Cancellations/Series endings, there is no differentiation between previously ongoing series that happened to have ended in that season, new series that were cancelled the season in which they debuted, and series that were ordered and then pulled before they even aired. Boldfacing the titles of the cancelled new series would highlight those well, but I don't have an idea for the pre-broadcast cancellations. Thoughts? postdlf ( talk) 00:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Back in September I raised the issue of cast tables in articles. Today a new "threat" has appeared, excessively detailed, episode by episode breakdowns of "character appearances". These edits cover every main character in every episode that has aired of Two and a Half Men. I haven't seen these at any other article. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Does this topic adhere to WP:Notability? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
We should all be aware by now that the MOS says cast should be arranged in original credit order, but what is "original credit order"? For most series it should be obvious, actor A's name appears for a few seconds, then actor B, actor C and so on, so credit order is actor A, actor B, actor C. But what happens when two or more names appear at the same time on one screen? For example, the credits for a series that I watch has actor A and actor B appearing on the same screen with actor A appearing physically above actor A. Since we read from left to right and top to bottom, it would seem that actor A should be credited before actor B. Does this seem correct? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Is Son of the Bronx a reliable source? I have been using it to add ratings to articles. The WP:TVFAQ says that there is no consensus within the community if it's reliable or not. A pro is that it has a history of accuracy, and the data usually comes straight from Nielsen. The website has been referenced by other publications. A con is that it's on Blogspot, and the author isn't well known. Dcbanners ( talk) 11:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
rs}}
as plausible but not reliable and otherwise just leave it alone.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
rs}}
makes sense and would be a good compromise here. That way users can take the source with a grain of salt.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)SonOfTheBronx.com does not vouch for the accuracy of any of its ratings content. Most audience numbers for televised events and programs have been compiled from data collected in the public domain, either from published press releases or other web sites. SonOfTheBronx.com does not claim any copyrights to these numbers. SonOfTheBronx.com would assertively urge any party or business not to make any decision based on any of the content mentioned on SonOfTheBronx.com.This kind of makes it not WP:RS... but then again he's just assembling data from actual WP:RS and that sounds like a legal disclaimer that it's not his own numbers and he can't be held responsible for them. Blarg... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 00:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, I have a question that I'd like some discussion about at Talk:Comcast SportsNet Houston#New article or re-direct?. Thanks. TomCat4680 ( talk) 04:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I've listed the article Secret Mountain Fort Awesome for peer review to see how much progress is necessary in order for it to become a featured article. Any feedback is appreciated. The peer review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Secret Mountain Fort Awesome/archive1. Thank you. 23W 04:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
There has been a dispute between Dcbanners and Chasbo123 on Phineas and Ferb (season 4) over if episodes should be paired. I don't think we should pair them because episodes are produced and aired individually; they're only paired to fill out a half-hour timeslot. It is confusing and misleading. It also makes no sense because the pairs air on different dates. If you look at most episode guides, they list each one individually. The episodes should be numbered individually by air date. The pairings made can also be considered original research. How about your opinions? Dcbanners ( talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we have an issue in need of addressing ASAP. This user is moving articles with apparently no discussion. Some are not terribly intuitive, and there are misspellings in others, etc. [5] Similar edits coming from this dude too, who expressed support of a proposed move by Rigby. My first instinct is that there could be socking going on. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is a request for comment relevant to this WikiProject at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4)#RfC - Pairing of episodes. There is a dispute about whether or not episodes should be paired, since reliable sources are inconsistent about the matter. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm trying to figure out who the possible sockmaster might be of this guy:
They typically add categories to articles that are not supported by article prose. They hop IPs a lot. The IPs don't leave edit summaries, otherwise I sort of feel they are related to the vandal I call "Marhc". (That vandal typically adds redlink cats and weird edit summaries like "(Marhc 2019)" or "(April 20015)".) Anyhow, the 108 IP guy has been at it for a while, and I was trying to get a lead as to who it might be related to. @ Geraldo Perez:, @ Smalljim:, @ Bonusballs:, do you guys have any thoughts? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 03:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There's an IP user who's going through articles and adding commas before ampersands, like here as if he's going for an Oxford/serial comma, but this is problematic and I feel like I've seen people adding ampersands indiscriminately to a number of articles recently in place of ands or commas. [6] This is an issue because the Writer's Guild of America (WGA), which oversees most of the writer-related issues in mainstream live-action television in the US uses the word "and" to indicate two writers who have penned a script together, (or omits it entirely) but uses an ampersand (&) to indicate a writing team. [7] The Animation Guild, which has jurisdiction over union signatory shows in animation does the same thing. [8]. You can see how this is problematic if people are changing "and" to ampersands without reason, and if they're adding Oxford commas to break up the list. This is a pretty common convention in the US, although I'm not sure what the global attitude is. I feel like it's worth mentioning somewhere official. And any help I can get with trying to convince this kid to lay off the serial commas, I would appreciate. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 04:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Another Wikipedian insists on having the article on The Powerpuff Girls at a higher importance than it needs to be for certain projects, including this one; see this edit: [9] I object to this because this show was a fad. A fad is a show or other material good or such that was very popular for a very brief period, as is the case with The Powerpuff Girls show. The show seems to have been very popular, mostly in the year 2000, but not so much after that. The feature film based on the series, released in 2002, did poorly, thus supporting the fact that this was a fad. Fads deserve to be of lesser importance than those things that have more lasting power, such as shows like SpongeBob SquarePants and Scooby-Doo. Classicalfan626 ( talk) 23:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The context is List_of_programs_broadcast_by_WGN_America, which was reported to ANI a while ago because there was a single active editor fighting with IPs to keep unsourced speculation out of the article. Why do we have such articles? They're not encyclopedic, WGN has a website for anyone who is interested, and it's not clear to me there are enough volunteers to maintain it to Wikipedia standards. Seems like it would be better just to delete it. (Note: I found a prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_5#Current_primetime_television_schedules). NE Ent 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I started this draft two years ago, but I have not been able to continue editing it for two years. Can anyone help me determine notability of this topic and expand the article? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI: A discussion to rename Category:Cartoon Network programs to Category:Cartoon Network original programs can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 25#Category:Cartoon Network programs Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
StewieBaby05 has some chronic problems. He came to my attention today after he split List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes into separate seasons without discussion, without edit summary, and without copyright attribution to the original editors. It appears as if he has been doing this same kind of thing for quite some time. His use of talk pages, always rather sparing, has become even less. I counted two uses in the past 1000 edits, and both were apologies for doing something wrong. I suggest that his latest work be reverted, and that his entire contribution history be scrutinized for copyright violations (and repaired or undone, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia) and perhaps someone would like to mentor him if he is willing to discuss that. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I see the points raised about his not using an edit summary, but copyright infringement? Uh what? Splitting large episode lists into season pages and transcluding the episode tables back to the list of epiosdes page is common practice and does not tread in any copyright/attribution issues. StewieBaby was right to want to split the list (over 100kb should be split per WP:SIZESPLIT), but the execution was definitely off. I do support splitting List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes into season pages if there is enough production/reception information to go with the episode tables. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Something definitely needs to be done. I'm pretty familiar with his editing history and his habits, and they don't seem to have changed at all. His article creation history needs to be looked at. He's created hundreds of unnecessary TV season articles, that contain only episode lists, and if anything else, basic DVD and time slot information, nothing else, which doesn't suffice to have standalone articles. He creates these articles, then doesn't touch them again (or in any significant way), with seemingly no interest in expanding them in any way. Just look at The Dick Van Dyke Show (season 1), Newhart (season 1), or The Mary Tyler Moore Show (season 1), all created more than a year and a half ago, with no significant expansion or edits since then. I'll gladly help out with redirecting and/or merging of this content back to episode list pages. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 20:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would it be OK to add {{ WikiProject Television}} to this article? Also, this seems article seems to have been added straight to main space and has not been reviewed yet. In fact, the article's creator removed the {{ unreviewed}} that was added when the article was created with this edit . So, I was wondering if someone with more experience in TV articles than myself might take a look closer look at this. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UniversiTV 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/UniversiTV 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. Theenjay36 ( talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I was asked by a casual Wikipedia reader why we don't use infoboxes on LoE pages. (That's not exactly what the person asked but it's a close translation from "non-Wikipedian".
) For the life of me I couldn't think of a reason why. Of course, infoboxes are not mandatory, but we use them in main and season articles, as well as individual character articles, so why not on the LoE page? Any thoughts? --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the things that convinced me that home media shouldn't be in series overview tables was the inclusion of Blu-ray information. MOS:TV#DVD and Blu-ray releases says "The inclusion of DVD and Blu-ray releases in episode lists is not a requirement but up to editor preference. If such releases are included, they should include all primary release dates (i.e. Region 1, Region 2, and Region 4 DVD codes and A, B, and C for Blu-ray)." This results in a very wide table that, with the the information that we normally include in series overview tables, is too wide for the average page. Even without the series overview content, home media tables are still very wide. Some editors try to avoid this by combining the regions (i.e. regions 1/A, 2/B, 4/C) but this is inappropriate as the regions are not identical. For example, DVD region 1 is essentially the US and Canada, while Blu-ray region A includes all of South America, which is in DVD region 4. Blu-ray regions require separate columns but that makes the table very messy. Examples of both the incorrectly combined table layout and a "correctly formatted" table that is also MOS:ACCESS/ MOS:DTT and MOS:BOLD compliant may be seen here. The problem is, the compliant table looks horrible, because of the need to manipulate region column widths so as to include the "additional info" column. I was wondering if we should perhaps bang our heads together and come up with a standardised table format that looks better while still complying with MOS:ACCESS/ MOS:DTT, MOS:BOLD, MOS:TV etc. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Really quick: Should Disney Channel (Asia) have MDY dates or DMY dates? Disney is an American subject, so I'm inclined to think MDY (December 16, 2014) is the right format for dates, however the article is about Disney Asia, so I could also understand a counter-argument for DMY dates (16 December 2014) since Asia formats numbers differently. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Should we round the audience numbers to the nearest hundredth? I noticed that the majority of series articles show the first three numbers of data. I was thinking about making the kid shows like that too. How about your opinions? Dcbanners ( talk) 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, anybody have a lead on reliable air dates for this series? There's an IP-hopping editor from Terre Haute who keeps changing the entirety of the air dates without references or explanation. They've been at it for months. Most of the usual sources, MSN, TVGuide, Zap, are completely useless. Can't even find anything at Epguides. The only remaining sources seem to be IMDb, TV.com, and Wikia, all of which are garbage, and TVSeriesFinale.com offers a crumb or two, but doesn't fill me with much hope, WP:RS-wise. I've even tried poking through old Google archived newspapers to see if I could drum up some info on episodes, but to no avail. Most of the TV grids tend to be for evening programming. Ideas? I slapped a "factual accuracy is in dispute" template on the article a while back. What should I do with the dates? Leave 'em? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Nine months ago, {{ Infobox Rome episode}} was nominated for deletion. Since that affected {{ Infobox television episode}} I started a discussion here, which become moot after the TfD was closed as "no consensus". Infobox Rome episode has again been nominated, so some opinions on how to proceed would be appreciated at the TfD. The discussion may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, if anyone could add Comedy-drama to their watchlist, I'd appreciate it. Although it's not a prolific problem, users keep coming by and adding examples to the list of notable comedy-dramas as if the purpose of the article is to list every comedy-drama under the sun. Had some problems with kids adding cartoons like Kung Fu Panda to the list and crap like that. It would be ideal if we could establish what the intended scope of the article is, because a list article it is not. Grf. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
What constitutes an unseen character? In The Big Bang Theory, Mrs Wolowitz is clearly an unseen character. She interacts with other characters on numerous occasions but her face was never seen. However, other characters are not so obvious to some editors. Another character in the series has appeared in three episodes over 2 seasons, and was mentioned by name once or twice in 3 other seasons. Does this make him an unseen character. I would argue not, but another editor has a different opinion. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Roles can change during the course of a show. A character can start as unseen, become seen, and then go back to being unseen. What if the producers of Frazier would have elected to cast someone as Maris on the series finale? would that have made the character's role for all the previous episodes no longer "unseen"? Ricardo Santiago ( talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone has not noticed, new episodes in episode tables using {{ Episode list}} are now displaying a space between the episode title and the reference:
Title |
---|
"Episode Title" [1] |
References
This is a breach of
WP:REFPUNCT, which requires that references immediately follow punctuation. The change was caused by
this edit to
Module:Episode list, after a discussion by some people who I assume have never used {{
Episode list}}. I admit to being more than a little frustrated by this, as the same thing happened back in 2012 to {{
Episode list}}
(The change was even made by the same editor).
[16] The change has effectively made the Title
field useless. When adding a new episode now, instead of typing this:
{{Episode list/sublist|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19 |Title = Episode Title |RTitle = <ref>episode reference</ref> }}
it will be necesssary to type:
{{Episode list/sublist|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19 |RTitle = "Episode Title"<ref>episode reference</ref> }}
This makes it overly complicated for inexperienced editors, even moreso when you consider that we normally remove references after episodes have aired by deleting the RTitle line. Now we can't be that quick. Instead the RTitle field will have to be renamed and the quotes removed. I've posted about this at Module talk:Episode list, [17] but others may need to become involved if we're to stop it happening again, and again.... -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. My addition of a "series overview" table to List of Smallville episodes per WP:TVOVERVIEW has been met with objections. A neutral editor's take would be appreciated (and WP:TV is obviously directly related). The conversation can be found at Talk:List of Smallville episodes#Series overview table. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
QI, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Bilorv (talk) (c) 20:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion about former programs (or not) of One Magnificent Morning in whether one can assume by schedule if a program is no long in the line up thus a former program. Also, whether or nor Boomtron is a Reliable source. Spshu ( talk) 15:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Wonder Pets about whether or not to move the article to Wonder Pets!, which contains an exclamation mark. There are numerous similar articles, like Yo Gabba Gabba!, All Grown Up!, Go, Diego, Go! and Hey Arnold!. (Does Nickelodeon add exclamations to everything?) and there are other examples of non-TV-related articles like Wham!. (In Wham!, I notice that the exclamation appears in prose numerous times.) I think a lot of kids feel that the logo should be a determining factor, although WP:TITLETM says that independent sources should determine the title. What then are these independent sources? Do we use sites like TVGuide, which uses "Wonder Pets!" in their episode listings? Or do we care more about books, newspapers, etc? Tis not quite clear, but perhaps it should be. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this template (concerning the TV show that auditioned Dorothys for Lloyd Webber's production of The Wizard of Oz) does anything useful -- all the information in it are contained in the article about the show and in the relevant category. If others agree, can someone please nominate it for deletion and then let us know so that we can comment? Please also let the WP:MUSICALS project know. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrobison ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:GA article From The Doctor to my son Thomas had a couple quote boxes at time of promotion to GA quality.
Now there's a discussion about use of those quote boxes.
Please see discussion, at Talk:From_The_Doctor_to_my_son_Thomas#Quote_boxes.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see ongoing deletion discussion for Ron Wear, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a draft article I'm creating that is a known miniseries and I do not know how to disambiguate it (it does need one). Looking at Category:American television miniseries, I see a disparity between (TV miniseries) and (miniseries). Which one would be the better one to use? (FYI, the draft is for the Marvel The Defenders Netflix miniseries.) - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
So whos doing the testing for pbs or are the just pulling this stuff out of thin air? I would like to see more information on this because half the show is about genetics and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornersss ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologize.I ended up on the wrong page and was just as confused. Cornersss ( talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute between me and Favre1fan93 about international broadcast on Agent Carter. Is it limited to only English-speaking countries? I added the Middle East and Southeast Asian broadcasts because they air it in English. Maybe changing WP:TVINTL to include all countries that air shows in English? Dcbanners ( talk) 11:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That is a slippery slope to go down, I cannot think of the last time I've seen any project regulate such specifics in articles like that. Film doesn't do it, and that is our closest medium (they are released in far more diverse markets as well). I'll be interested to see what others think (though, it would probably be best to have this discussion at the MOS than on the main project page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Cyphoidbomb:, what we will need to do is decide here what we want to do and how it should look. Then, we go to the MOS and make an official proposal. Following that, we will need to do legitimate "canvassing" to all the projects to let them know of the proposed change to give them ample time to either agree or disagree. This way, no one can say we're hiding anything. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, could use some feedback at Talk:Teen Titans Go! (TV series). Users (probably the same person/people) keeps adding romance content that appears to me as speculative and non-noteworthy. I'm not familiar with the series, so if anyone has a better take on what the user is adding and can tailor it for inclusion so that it doesn't come off as speculative and crufty, I'd appreciate that. Feedback on the talk page would also be appreciated, since the user hasn't yet responded to discussion on their talk page or the article's talk page. If the content is sound, then by all means we can include it, but right now it's coming across as crush cruft. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
For a long time it has been standard practice to list episode titles as they are shown on-screen or in reliable sources, especially when the reliable source is authoritative, such as a press release. This includes capitalisation. However, MOS:CT seems at odds with this practice and I was wondering how we as a project see this issue. Using on-screen or WP:RS capitalisation is never usually an issue, but I've been having an issue at NCIS: Los Angeles (season 6) over this with an IP who refuses to discuss. On-screen the episode title is all-caps, but the press release shows all words capitalised. [18] If we decide to follow MOS:CT (which is only a guideline after all), then we should probably address this in MOS:TV. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)I think that this article needs to be updated. -- Gce ( talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
For the past several years, I have been dealing with low-speed vandalism regarding the official trademarked spellings for several television shows because the online fandoms for these TV shows disagree with how the trademarks were filed and prefer alternate versions that appear in no reliable sources. The articles are as follows:
The words on these pages that cause issues are "Buddyloid", "Metaloid", and "Vaglass". At Talk:Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters#Final statement on Vaglass, Buddyloid, and Metaloid, I have gone over the evidence as to why the L spellings are used on Wikipedia, as they are the only spellings in use in reliable sources (outside of the exactly one instance of an alternate spelling appearing on screen briefly extremely early into the TV show's broadcast).
The word in contention on this page is "Tajadol". The proof for this spelling comes from these officially licensed products' packaging as well as the TV show's official website. I had not attempted to get this onto a talk page until now.
There are also peripheral issues with the titling of Himitsu Sentai Gorenger where people prefer "Goranger" over what was recently found to be the official trademarked name now in use on the article, but it has been covered at Talk:Himitsu Sentai Gorenger#Proper title translation? where people have been ignorant of the spelling for years despite blatant usage on props in the show.
With the pending arbitration sanctions against me, I fear that my ability to prevent vandalism to these pages to bad-faith change the spellings against consensus will be hampered or willfully exploited by people to spite me. This has already recently happened at Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters and has happened in the past at Kamen Rider OOO (character). I would just like more eyes on these pages to watch for these bad faith changes.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 20:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
1st NVS Awards Brazil was nominated for deletion over a week ago but there has been no discussion. Comments would therefore be appreciated at the deletion discussion, which may be found here. Thank you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a ongoing discussion at Talk:The Blacklist (TV series)#The Blacklist regarding the " The Blacklist" section. All interested are welcome to comment. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a question about the listing of "centric episodes" in the {{ infobox character}} template. I checked MOS:TV#Character article structure and this talk page's archives, but wasn't able to find anything specific regarding this so I thought I'd ask.
The parameter " lbl#" is being used to add "Centric episode(s)" info to (pretty much) all the infoboxes of the character pages of the The Walking Dead. I'm not exactly sure what criteria are being used to determine what is "centric". This kind of information seems, at least to me, to be pretty subjective at best, especially since some episodes are being listed as "centric" for multiple characters. Isn't this kind of information just original research?
Another concern I have is that for a main character like Rick Grimes (for some reason that article is not listed as being under the purview of this WikiProject), practically every episode could be considered to be "centric", couldn't it? Currently, there are 17 episodes listed as "centric" in that article's infobox and I expect there's going to be more added as the series goes on. I've looked at some other character pages from popular TV series such as Tony Soprano, Rachel Green, Hawkeye Pierce, Archie Bunker, Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jerry Seinfeld (character), Jack Bauer, etc. and none of the infoboxes on those pages have "Centric episode(s)" listed. So, I am wondering if "Centric episode(s)" is something unique to The Walking Dead articles.
Anyway, I just thought I'd ask here and see what others might have to say before bringing it up on each article's talk page. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting this discussion here as to centralize it (see WP:TALKCENT) and because it concerns a matter that confuses me. I reverted Trivialist here at the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article; as seen in that diff-link, he tagged the article with Template:Primary sources, which states, in part, "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." I stated with my revert, "There are plenty of non- WP:Primary sources in this article. Primary sources are fine for the plot section." I then saw that Trivialist came to the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article because of a dispute he had with an IP at the Tyreese article. I'm not seeing the IP's point of referring Trivialist to the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article, since whether or not an article "relies too much on references to primary sources" is not dependent upon another article; the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article clearly has more non-WP:Primary sources than the Tyreese article does. And if Trivialist is tagging articles with the "primary sources" tag because the plot summaries don't use WP:Secondary sources, that is faulty reasoning. I reiterate that primary sources are fine for the plot section. Look at the WP:Good article Clark Kent (Smallville), for example. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries, the plot section does not necessarily need references.
Since I've pinged Trivialist to this talk page via WP:Echo, I'll alert the IP of this section on the IP's talk page. That stated, edits like this and this make me think that the IP is Thelonggoneblues. And if you are that IP, Thelonggoneblues, you need to start consistently signing in instead of making it seem like you are two different people; do see what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts states about editing while logged out. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Going by this compared to this, and Thelonggoneblues trying to remove this section, it's safe to state that the IP and Thelonggoneblues are the same person. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think time should be included below the date in the info-box for awards shows. With a quick glance, I want to be able to see the date AND time of the event without having to read the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavi333 ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I just tagged ITV as {{ dabconcept}}. I was editing an article recently that mentioned a British person worked for ITV. How could I possibly know which of these many entries to point it to? This is a classic case where there needs to be an article called ITV about the series of British television networks so it doesn't take an expert to figure out how to make a simple link. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Requesting comments at Talk:Little Einsteins#IMDb reviews, TV.com reviews, user reviews... Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Should main characters who are absent from an episode be mentioned on episode list pages in the table? Example: [19]. In my opinion, it's not important and should but be listed, but an IP editor is insisting it should be on my user talk page, so I'm seeking other opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This might be a question better suited for the village pump, but I'm having difficulty with making a table for List of Action League Now! episodes. Before that, the page listed the episodes using bullets, so I did some regex to conform the data to a wikitable. Right now, however, it's only showing the first season's table and nothing else. Can someone figure this out? Thanks. 23W 05:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I've put Only Fools and Horses up for review of its featured status at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Only Fools and Horses/archive1. Improvements and comments welcome. Bencherlite Talk 11:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello friends, I think I might be misinterpreting TVUPCOMING, which would be embarrassing, but hey, it happens. In these edits, I've moved content from the (basically) empty Episode section to the lead, which seems consistent with what we do for newly announced seasons per TVUPCOMING. However, this is a new series, not a new season—Should the Episode section exist in its current format? Or do we move that content to the lead until eps start to be sourceable? I don't have a preference either way, I just want to make sure I'm doing the preferred thing. Input requested. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender#Serious issues with ratings info. Thanks.
Mdrnpndr (
talk)
23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In November 2014 I nominated " Clown in the Dumps" for GA. A user expressed intent to review it in January 2015, but has not been active on Wikipedia since. If anybody has the time, I would be more than grateful for somebody to pick up and do the review. '''tAD''' ( talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not particularity agree with the way MOS:TVCAST is currently run. I feel that the cast list should be arranged in episode frequency from most appearances to least. In a show like The King of Queens the current format doesn't work at all, as Lisa Rieffel is in 5 episodes she is never mentioned again but some what gets named the third main character.
This is how it is currently listed
This is how i feel it should be listed
It is much clearer for someone who hasn't watched the show who the main characters are. Please consider this and reply if you agree as I feel this system is corrupt and need to be fixed. Thank You JohnGormleyJG ( talk) 10:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I love the TV show Babylon 5 - it is one of my all-time favorites. But Wikipedia's coverage of the fictional Babylon 5 universe looks more like a Babylon 5 Wikia site than an encyclopedia's coverage ... see Index of Babylon 5 articles for the absurd number of Babylon 5 in-universe articles. I have prodded a few and boldly redirected others and a lot of the ones listed here don't actually go to separate articles - they are (correctly) redirects to something like Civilizations in Babylon 5. But there are still articles on ships that were only used in a single episode and other similar things that really don't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm throwing this out there for anyone interested. -- B ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to request editors to join the discussion regarding potential WP:SPECULATION material on Constantine (TV series). Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
With the recent helicopter crash in Argentina, it is apparent that there is no category covering deaths during filming of reality TV programmes. I'm sure that these are not the only ones to have happened as I remember the death whilst filming Noel's House Party in the 1990s (not mentioned in the article though). So, do we need Category:Reality TV deaths? Mjroots ( talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that genre info, especially in infoboxes, is largely unsourced. I know Cyphoidbomb has been helping fend off the folks who keep adding unsourced genres (esp. comedy-drama and black comedy) to pages. I am going to start editing to add sources, primarily on cartoon pages. Just wondering if anyone wants to join me as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing is absolutely required for genres in TV show infoboxes per the template documentation. Any unsourced genres should be removed from such infoboxes (but not necessarily the corresponding articles) on sight. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 21:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Three hard to document shows for the 1970s English TV section are Sky, Andra and The Eagle of the Ninth. The first has a name that gets a swamp of mis-hits, the second had its master tape overwritten by a Singaporean game show and the last has the most documentation, about three lines on the scriptwriter. These were the best young adult shows I saw as a kid, and somebody should save them if they can. Jsemmel ( talk) 13:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have just created Clem, a French TV series. As I am not familiar with pages about TV series (I am mostly working on models/fashion related pages), could someone help me by adding the episodes from this page on the French wikipedia? Thanks in advance. -- MirandaKeurr ( talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The article about Mind Meld, a film about William Shatner's and Leonard Nimoy's experiences in the Star Trek television series, has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix ( talk) 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Do TV-show running times in the TV infobox require a citation to verify them, or are editors allowed to measure them with a stopwatch ourselves? WikiProject Film requires citations for movie running times. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
|runtime=
parameter at
Template:Infobox television should be simplified. So the discussion is a mite bigger. I can see both sides of this issue for a number of reasons and I don't think there's always a clear either-or here. There is a general inconsistency in how various TV programs are described in the real world, because sometimes they're described in terms of the block of air time they occupy (i.e. 15-minute, 30-minute, 60-minute, 90-minute, 2-hour) and sometimes they're described in terms of their rough segment length. A show like Happy Days is considered a half-hour sitcom.
60 Minutes is considered an hour-long news magazine although the article ascribes a 42 minute running time to the latter. I'm not sure that measuring a current broadcast with a stopwatch will be very helpful, especially when shows like Seinfeld and Friends are being sped up by TBS to fit in extra commercials.
[21]
[22] That makes verifiability a little difficult. Animated series are often categorized differently than half-hour sitcoms. Sometimes an animated series is picked up for a specific number of 5 minute shorts. Sometimes these shorts are lumped together to fill a certain block, and sometimes they are not and are used as interstitial programming. Sometimes an episode comprises two 11-minute shorts and are considered a "22 minute" series, though they might occupy a 30 minute block, and though they might not actually occupy a rigidly measured 22 minutes. (They might run long or short.) And when some sources report on these animation pickups, they sometimes refer to them in specific ways, like 52 x 13
[23] or 52 x 11, (and I'm having a bit of difficulty finding specifics on short notice, although they do exist) or a bunch of different ways depending on what their internal preference is. My feeling is that there might be more than one way to refer to these series, depending on how the production network promotes/categorizes/considers them.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section.. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.The documentation, as it stands, does not override the requirements of WP:V, so WP:V vs WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not relevant at all. This RfC is asking if we should change the documentation to require citations, which is above and beyond what WP:V requires. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributednot everything. In this case the info is not likely to be challenged when the approximations are plausible and easy to verify. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
|runtime=
field of an infobox. I've seen cases where editors have argued over the length because they chose to include commercials, despite the documentation clearly saying not to include commercials, or where there is an argument as to whether a children's program had 11 or 22 minute episodes because some editors regard episodes to consist of 2 x 11 minute "segments" but these are few and far between. The actual runtime is rarely challenged though, so no, runtimes are not inherently 'likely to be challenged'". --
AussieLegend (
✉)
19:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor doesn't have to put a "citation request" tag on every single infobox to challenge an infobox parameterby pointing out that RfC is an informal non-binding process, while adding {{ citation needed}} is a formal process. As such RfC doesn't have the same weight as adding {{ citation needed}}.
runtime
parameter only require that the figure "should be approximated". It provides an example of "22–26 minutes". Citing an individual film is easy, as film runtimes are widely published. TV episodes are not because they vary so widely. Even the runtimes seen occasionally on iTunes and Amazon are approximations. As Cyphoidbomb has indicated, some shows are sped up on TV but, generally, first-run airings are not making timing easy. This is based on several years of checking the 28,000+ episodes that I have available here. Contrary to Tenebrae's assertion, TV episodes are
primary sources and timing the episodes is permitted per
WP:CALC. Geraldo Perez is correct in stating that we shouldn't need references for stuff that is trivially verifiable such as episode length. Runtimes are essential parts of any episode so we certainly should not delete the parameter from the infobox as suggested by one editor. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
07:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)...all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The point of contention is if running times for TV series episodes is material "
likely to be challenged". My opinion is no, particularly for the approximations or ranges generally listed for and expected for half-hour-long or hour-long slotted TV episodes. In my opinion, times that deviate from the normal 22-23 or 45-46 times will be something likely to be challenged and should probably be referenced for support. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 23:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
tag added to run times on any shows I watch, so the likelihood appears minimal to me, of course based on my experience. I would probably investigate or tag weird times, though, and adding references if I had to investigate.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
00:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Anything you say — or that I would say — characterizing someone else's post is our interpretation. The above is solely your opinion. The editors who posted are quite capable of speaking for themselves. You don't like the fact they disagree with you, that they say Yes to citing, and it is highly inappropriate of you to try to twist other people's comments to say what you'd like them to say. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes if exact times are givenbut the added a caveat "If the run times are approximate ... this is unlikely to be disputed ... only require a citation if they are 'challenged or likely to be challenged'." A following editor voted yes, per the editor I quoted, but added
If the time is a range (ex: 22-25 minutes), I wouldn't think they needed to be cited. Both of these are effectively No votes based on the template instructions, which specify an approximate range. As Geraldo said, you need to read beyond the first word of the vote. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting that neither of the two editors arguing that they should be allowed to put in runtimes without citation have refused to answer a couple of critical questions.
They say the information is "easily observable" or "easily verifiable." How is time "observable"? And if the running time is "easily verifiable", exactly how is it "easily verifiable"? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting that neither of the two editors arguing that they should be allowed to put in runtimes without citation have refused to answer a couple of critical questions.Why do you find it interesting that neither of us have refused to answer? I'll remind you that I've explained how one can verify the runtime at Template talk:Infobox television, in the discussion prior to this RfC and there are 4 editors who have argued that citations are not necessary. Of course there are other editors who have said that citations are not required for approximate times. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If the run times are approximate (e.g., half-hour including advertisements), this is unlikely to be disputed; they need to be vertifiable but only require a citation if they are "challenged or likely to be challenged", while another said
If the time is a range (ex: 22-25 minutes), I wouldn't think they needed to be cited.Since the infobox only requires approximate times, those are effectively "no" votes, as already explained. A third editor said
they should be cited but they should only be include infoboxes in articles about a particular episode not an entire series. In series articles, this information is better suited in the episode table. That vote can be discarded as there's nothing close to consensus to remove running times from the infobox altogether. Only your vote supports citing all runtimes. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time."So you can provide citations, but you say you're refusing to. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I started discussion topics in two articles, but no one is coming.
JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Nickandmore.com has posted on their main page that they are no longer active. "NICKandMORE has come to an end. The website will remain a permanent archive." Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (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 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
How many episodes does a series need to have before an episode list can be split into its own page? I've had the list of SheZow episodes episodes merged into the main article by CAWylie a while ago on the grounds that the main article was too short, but in my opinion this only makes it look worse. It lists 52 segments (of 26 episodes) individually, which makes for quite a long list. Not to mention we have featured episode lists like the list of Awake episodes which only consists of a season of twelve episodes. What's the limit here? 23W ( talk · stalk) 01:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI to all: MSN has a new design, and existing references like http://tv.msn.com/tv/series-episodes/nicky-ricky-dicky-and-dawn/?ipp=40 at Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn may not work any longer. Gaak! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Could I get a few opinions about the order of the stars in TV series infobox at Talk:Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)#Starring_order_in_Infobox. The statement that: "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show" seems clear to me, but one editor doesn't want to add the new people at the end. I think the policy should be adhered to for consistency unless there is justification and a consensus to change. AbramTerger ( talk) 14:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move request is still ongoing. If you like, you can relist the discussion; see WP:RM#Relisting for instructions. -- George Ho ( talk) 01:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Page move proposal is discussed; join in. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
No, not really. There is a content dispute at List of The Big Bang Theory characters. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to have a lot of active editors so I'm seeking wider input. The relevant discussion is at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters#Content dispute - October 2014. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in weighing in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FOX animated universe. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, just a heads-up that I've had some run-ins with a now indeffed user, Avenger2015 who keeps adding unsourced and redundant cast information in articles typically related to children's television. Typically if a main article has a list of characters, or even a unique LoC article, the user will (usually over the course of one or two dozen consecutive edits) add a litany of names/roles. The lists are indiscriminate and often include presumably non-notable roles like Raccoon #4 or Man #2. So if you see cast lists pop up, you might want to take a look to see if there is already a character list. Here are 23 sample edits from Avenger2015. 16 edits from IP 98.24.156.14 and 17 edits from new user Speedball1988, whom I suspect of being a sock of Avenger. The new user repeats the same edit summary in each of his edit, which is a new affect. The user almost never speaks. The first time Avenger spoke was after his third trip to ANI. My hypothesis is that this is another incarnation of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal. If you notice any new socks, the SPI report is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avenger2015. Danke, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#VG comments subpages regarding whether it would be acceptable to permanently shift all comments subpages associated with WP:VG articles into talk. This shift would follow the recommended approach given at WP:DCS. The WikiProject Television articles that would be affected by this action are these:
If you have objections related specifically to WikiProject Television's use of these subpages, please make this clear at the discussion so that other unrelated talk pages can be cleaned up where appropriate. Thank you. - Thibbs ( talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently created Category:Television episodes in multiple parts for... episodes that are in multiple parts, but I'm not sure if this was appropriate or not anymore. Would it be helpful to anyone to have this? 23W ( talk · stalk · pend) 00:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Could someone from Wikiproject Television take a look at this edit and see if the sources cited are OK and if this type of information is something typically added to article's like this. As I posted at Talk:List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Gareth if cited by third party reliable sources then it's probably OK; One of the sources, however, appears to be from an interviews so I'm not sure if that's a problem per WP:PRIMARY. Also, I am a little concerned by the wording "It is rumored ..." even if it's cited. Anyway, I don't have lots of experience with these types of articles and since it's listed as being under this project, I thought I'd ask for feedback here. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 11:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Earlier last week, I had redone the timelines of housewives for each of The Real Housewives articles in a style that I thought was more clear and visually appealing that the original version. I had been reverted a couple times before I supposedly came to a compromise with another editor who was working on the tables, although they unexpectedly went back and reverted the tables to the original versions again. Instead of reverting them myself and running the risk of an edit war, I would like to reach a consensus here as to which style is preferable: WikiRedactor ( talk) 21:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A little bit of background here, at least as far as I've been able to determine. It seems that WikiRedactor has been working on the articles for some time, and had updated the tables periodically, but there came a time when he had a minor dispute with Mgaisser123 over the tables. They had a discussion and came to an agreement. However, since August 2014 Acpurdy has been reverting attempts to change the tables, [2] and he hasn't been involved in the discussions. He's continued to revert, right up until today. [3] I've finally managed to engage him in discussion and his rationale is essentially "because it is the one that has been there the longest, for years". [4] Despite the outcome of the RfC, he seems to be a hurdle that needs to be overcome before any improved table can be implemented. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Any feedback would be appreciated! J Milburn ( talk) 19:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created a new article on viral video From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
Help or suggestions with additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Son of the Bronx 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/Son of the Bronx 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. 23W 00:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at talk:Futurama#Original run as to what should go in first_aired and last_aired for this show with a large time gap between some of the seasons. See also Category:Television series revived after cancellation for shows of a similar sort. This may impact the instructions at Template:Infobox television as the desire is to do something that goes against the existing instructions for attribute use. It may also lead to modifications of that template to incorporate the concept of large time gaps in the initial run. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Every time I click on a link to ToonZone's forum, (usually the forum component, but presumably some pages on the main site as well) my antivirus software (Avast) dings and warns "Threat detected". This has been going on for years. Anybody know anything about this? My thinking is that if ToonZone's forums are running malicious software, we probably shouldn't include them at Wikipedia for any reason, which might mean adding them to the blacklist. Here's an example: I've redacted the "Toonzone". www.(Redacted).net/forums/nicktoons-forum/229052-international-nickelodeon-thread-59.html. Also, I'm not sure where else to mention this--Village Pump Technical? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WikiProject Television.
I looked at a few tv-series articles, and it seems that they generally have imdb under external links, but not RT. Is there any general reason I shouldn´t add RT as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, so for a while I was dealing with a disruptive user, Avenger2015, who kept adding extensive cast lists that duplicated existing character lists. I mentioned him here a short while ago. He's resorted to sockpuppetry, which is disappointing. Anyhow, at Green Lantern: The Animated Series and Transformers: Animated (articles that Avenger and at least one of his suspected socks has edited at, I notice there is a list of characters, but there is also an extensive list of voice cast/additional voices. Now typically I would remove the additional voices, but the cast list was in the article first, and it is sourced. I'm not quite sure what I should do here. Delete the Characters list? That still leaves the problem that many of the additional voices may not be noteworthy, and thus has become an indiscriminate list. And frankly I find the "Character (portrayed by Actor) - Description" format more useful than a straight cast list. Thoughts appreciated. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The naming and scope of "List of Doctor Who serials" is under discussion, see talk:List of Doctor Who serials -- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 05:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
We've modified MOS:TV to indicate that adding future years in section headings is inappropriate, so do we think that adding season articles to Category:2015 television seasons is also inappropriate? As of right now there are 45 articles in the category despite not a single episode having aired in 2015. This seems inconsistent with what we've aimed at with WP:TVUPCOMING. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to barge in, but I believe this is a related question. What about Category:2015 television series debuts, which contains categories like Category:2015 American television series debuts and Category:2015 British television programme debuts, etc.? There are currently 40 articles using these categories. Should these categories be empty until a series actually premieres? It seems to me that is how we did it in the past. -- Logical Fuzz ( talk) 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Currently, at lists like 2014–15 United States network television schedule#Cancellations/Series endings, there is no differentiation between previously ongoing series that happened to have ended in that season, new series that were cancelled the season in which they debuted, and series that were ordered and then pulled before they even aired. Boldfacing the titles of the cancelled new series would highlight those well, but I don't have an idea for the pre-broadcast cancellations. Thoughts? postdlf ( talk) 00:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Back in September I raised the issue of cast tables in articles. Today a new "threat" has appeared, excessively detailed, episode by episode breakdowns of "character appearances". These edits cover every main character in every episode that has aired of Two and a Half Men. I haven't seen these at any other article. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Does this topic adhere to WP:Notability? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
We should all be aware by now that the MOS says cast should be arranged in original credit order, but what is "original credit order"? For most series it should be obvious, actor A's name appears for a few seconds, then actor B, actor C and so on, so credit order is actor A, actor B, actor C. But what happens when two or more names appear at the same time on one screen? For example, the credits for a series that I watch has actor A and actor B appearing on the same screen with actor A appearing physically above actor A. Since we read from left to right and top to bottom, it would seem that actor A should be credited before actor B. Does this seem correct? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Is Son of the Bronx a reliable source? I have been using it to add ratings to articles. The WP:TVFAQ says that there is no consensus within the community if it's reliable or not. A pro is that it has a history of accuracy, and the data usually comes straight from Nielsen. The website has been referenced by other publications. A con is that it's on Blogspot, and the author isn't well known. Dcbanners ( talk) 11:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
rs}}
as plausible but not reliable and otherwise just leave it alone.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
rs}}
makes sense and would be a good compromise here. That way users can take the source with a grain of salt.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
22:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)SonOfTheBronx.com does not vouch for the accuracy of any of its ratings content. Most audience numbers for televised events and programs have been compiled from data collected in the public domain, either from published press releases or other web sites. SonOfTheBronx.com does not claim any copyrights to these numbers. SonOfTheBronx.com would assertively urge any party or business not to make any decision based on any of the content mentioned on SonOfTheBronx.com.This kind of makes it not WP:RS... but then again he's just assembling data from actual WP:RS and that sounds like a legal disclaimer that it's not his own numbers and he can't be held responsible for them. Blarg... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 00:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
For anyone who is interested, I have a question that I'd like some discussion about at Talk:Comcast SportsNet Houston#New article or re-direct?. Thanks. TomCat4680 ( talk) 04:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I've listed the article Secret Mountain Fort Awesome for peer review to see how much progress is necessary in order for it to become a featured article. Any feedback is appreciated. The peer review can be found here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Secret Mountain Fort Awesome/archive1. Thank you. 23W 04:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
There has been a dispute between Dcbanners and Chasbo123 on Phineas and Ferb (season 4) over if episodes should be paired. I don't think we should pair them because episodes are produced and aired individually; they're only paired to fill out a half-hour timeslot. It is confusing and misleading. It also makes no sense because the pairs air on different dates. If you look at most episode guides, they list each one individually. The episodes should be numbered individually by air date. The pairings made can also be considered original research. How about your opinions? Dcbanners ( talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we have an issue in need of addressing ASAP. This user is moving articles with apparently no discussion. Some are not terribly intuitive, and there are misspellings in others, etc. [5] Similar edits coming from this dude too, who expressed support of a proposed move by Rigby. My first instinct is that there could be socking going on. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, there is a request for comment relevant to this WikiProject at Talk:Phineas and Ferb (season 4)#RfC - Pairing of episodes. There is a dispute about whether or not episodes should be paired, since reliable sources are inconsistent about the matter. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm trying to figure out who the possible sockmaster might be of this guy:
They typically add categories to articles that are not supported by article prose. They hop IPs a lot. The IPs don't leave edit summaries, otherwise I sort of feel they are related to the vandal I call "Marhc". (That vandal typically adds redlink cats and weird edit summaries like "(Marhc 2019)" or "(April 20015)".) Anyhow, the 108 IP guy has been at it for a while, and I was trying to get a lead as to who it might be related to. @ Geraldo Perez:, @ Smalljim:, @ Bonusballs:, do you guys have any thoughts? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 03:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
There's an IP user who's going through articles and adding commas before ampersands, like here as if he's going for an Oxford/serial comma, but this is problematic and I feel like I've seen people adding ampersands indiscriminately to a number of articles recently in place of ands or commas. [6] This is an issue because the Writer's Guild of America (WGA), which oversees most of the writer-related issues in mainstream live-action television in the US uses the word "and" to indicate two writers who have penned a script together, (or omits it entirely) but uses an ampersand (&) to indicate a writing team. [7] The Animation Guild, which has jurisdiction over union signatory shows in animation does the same thing. [8]. You can see how this is problematic if people are changing "and" to ampersands without reason, and if they're adding Oxford commas to break up the list. This is a pretty common convention in the US, although I'm not sure what the global attitude is. I feel like it's worth mentioning somewhere official. And any help I can get with trying to convince this kid to lay off the serial commas, I would appreciate. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 04:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Another Wikipedian insists on having the article on The Powerpuff Girls at a higher importance than it needs to be for certain projects, including this one; see this edit: [9] I object to this because this show was a fad. A fad is a show or other material good or such that was very popular for a very brief period, as is the case with The Powerpuff Girls show. The show seems to have been very popular, mostly in the year 2000, but not so much after that. The feature film based on the series, released in 2002, did poorly, thus supporting the fact that this was a fad. Fads deserve to be of lesser importance than those things that have more lasting power, such as shows like SpongeBob SquarePants and Scooby-Doo. Classicalfan626 ( talk) 23:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The context is List_of_programs_broadcast_by_WGN_America, which was reported to ANI a while ago because there was a single active editor fighting with IPs to keep unsourced speculation out of the article. Why do we have such articles? They're not encyclopedic, WGN has a website for anyone who is interested, and it's not clear to me there are enough volunteers to maintain it to Wikipedia standards. Seems like it would be better just to delete it. (Note: I found a prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_5#Current_primetime_television_schedules). NE Ent 13:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I started this draft two years ago, but I have not been able to continue editing it for two years. Can anyone help me determine notability of this topic and expand the article? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
FYI: A discussion to rename Category:Cartoon Network programs to Category:Cartoon Network original programs can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 25#Category:Cartoon Network programs Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
StewieBaby05 has some chronic problems. He came to my attention today after he split List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes into separate seasons without discussion, without edit summary, and without copyright attribution to the original editors. It appears as if he has been doing this same kind of thing for quite some time. His use of talk pages, always rather sparing, has become even less. I counted two uses in the past 1000 edits, and both were apologies for doing something wrong. I suggest that his latest work be reverted, and that his entire contribution history be scrutinized for copyright violations (and repaired or undone, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia) and perhaps someone would like to mentor him if he is willing to discuss that. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I see the points raised about his not using an edit summary, but copyright infringement? Uh what? Splitting large episode lists into season pages and transcluding the episode tables back to the list of epiosdes page is common practice and does not tread in any copyright/attribution issues. StewieBaby was right to want to split the list (over 100kb should be split per WP:SIZESPLIT), but the execution was definitely off. I do support splitting List of Malcolm in the Middle episodes into season pages if there is enough production/reception information to go with the episode tables. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Something definitely needs to be done. I'm pretty familiar with his editing history and his habits, and they don't seem to have changed at all. His article creation history needs to be looked at. He's created hundreds of unnecessary TV season articles, that contain only episode lists, and if anything else, basic DVD and time slot information, nothing else, which doesn't suffice to have standalone articles. He creates these articles, then doesn't touch them again (or in any significant way), with seemingly no interest in expanding them in any way. Just look at The Dick Van Dyke Show (season 1), Newhart (season 1), or The Mary Tyler Moore Show (season 1), all created more than a year and a half ago, with no significant expansion or edits since then. I'll gladly help out with redirecting and/or merging of this content back to episode list pages. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 20:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Would it be OK to add {{ WikiProject Television}} to this article? Also, this seems article seems to have been added straight to main space and has not been reviewed yet. In fact, the article's creator removed the {{ unreviewed}} that was added when the article was created with this edit . So, I was wondering if someone with more experience in TV articles than myself might take a look closer look at this. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 06:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UniversiTV 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/UniversiTV 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. Theenjay36 ( talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I was asked by a casual Wikipedia reader why we don't use infoboxes on LoE pages. (That's not exactly what the person asked but it's a close translation from "non-Wikipedian".
) For the life of me I couldn't think of a reason why. Of course, infoboxes are not mandatory, but we use them in main and season articles, as well as individual character articles, so why not on the LoE page? Any thoughts? --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
One of the things that convinced me that home media shouldn't be in series overview tables was the inclusion of Blu-ray information. MOS:TV#DVD and Blu-ray releases says "The inclusion of DVD and Blu-ray releases in episode lists is not a requirement but up to editor preference. If such releases are included, they should include all primary release dates (i.e. Region 1, Region 2, and Region 4 DVD codes and A, B, and C for Blu-ray)." This results in a very wide table that, with the the information that we normally include in series overview tables, is too wide for the average page. Even without the series overview content, home media tables are still very wide. Some editors try to avoid this by combining the regions (i.e. regions 1/A, 2/B, 4/C) but this is inappropriate as the regions are not identical. For example, DVD region 1 is essentially the US and Canada, while Blu-ray region A includes all of South America, which is in DVD region 4. Blu-ray regions require separate columns but that makes the table very messy. Examples of both the incorrectly combined table layout and a "correctly formatted" table that is also MOS:ACCESS/ MOS:DTT and MOS:BOLD compliant may be seen here. The problem is, the compliant table looks horrible, because of the need to manipulate region column widths so as to include the "additional info" column. I was wondering if we should perhaps bang our heads together and come up with a standardised table format that looks better while still complying with MOS:ACCESS/ MOS:DTT, MOS:BOLD, MOS:TV etc. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Really quick: Should Disney Channel (Asia) have MDY dates or DMY dates? Disney is an American subject, so I'm inclined to think MDY (December 16, 2014) is the right format for dates, however the article is about Disney Asia, so I could also understand a counter-argument for DMY dates (16 December 2014) since Asia formats numbers differently. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Should we round the audience numbers to the nearest hundredth? I noticed that the majority of series articles show the first three numbers of data. I was thinking about making the kid shows like that too. How about your opinions? Dcbanners ( talk) 22:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, anybody have a lead on reliable air dates for this series? There's an IP-hopping editor from Terre Haute who keeps changing the entirety of the air dates without references or explanation. They've been at it for months. Most of the usual sources, MSN, TVGuide, Zap, are completely useless. Can't even find anything at Epguides. The only remaining sources seem to be IMDb, TV.com, and Wikia, all of which are garbage, and TVSeriesFinale.com offers a crumb or two, but doesn't fill me with much hope, WP:RS-wise. I've even tried poking through old Google archived newspapers to see if I could drum up some info on episodes, but to no avail. Most of the TV grids tend to be for evening programming. Ideas? I slapped a "factual accuracy is in dispute" template on the article a while back. What should I do with the dates? Leave 'em? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa ( talk) 22:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Nine months ago, {{ Infobox Rome episode}} was nominated for deletion. Since that affected {{ Infobox television episode}} I started a discussion here, which become moot after the TfD was closed as "no consensus". Infobox Rome episode has again been nominated, so some opinions on how to proceed would be appreciated at the TfD. The discussion may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, if anyone could add Comedy-drama to their watchlist, I'd appreciate it. Although it's not a prolific problem, users keep coming by and adding examples to the list of notable comedy-dramas as if the purpose of the article is to list every comedy-drama under the sun. Had some problems with kids adding cartoons like Kung Fu Panda to the list and crap like that. It would be ideal if we could establish what the intended scope of the article is, because a list article it is not. Grf. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 23:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
What constitutes an unseen character? In The Big Bang Theory, Mrs Wolowitz is clearly an unseen character. She interacts with other characters on numerous occasions but her face was never seen. However, other characters are not so obvious to some editors. Another character in the series has appeared in three episodes over 2 seasons, and was mentioned by name once or twice in 3 other seasons. Does this make him an unseen character. I would argue not, but another editor has a different opinion. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Roles can change during the course of a show. A character can start as unseen, become seen, and then go back to being unseen. What if the producers of Frazier would have elected to cast someone as Maris on the series finale? would that have made the character's role for all the previous episodes no longer "unseen"? Ricardo Santiago ( talk) 14:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone has not noticed, new episodes in episode tables using {{ Episode list}} are now displaying a space between the episode title and the reference:
Title |
---|
"Episode Title" [1] |
References
This is a breach of
WP:REFPUNCT, which requires that references immediately follow punctuation. The change was caused by
this edit to
Module:Episode list, after a discussion by some people who I assume have never used {{
Episode list}}. I admit to being more than a little frustrated by this, as the same thing happened back in 2012 to {{
Episode list}}
(The change was even made by the same editor).
[16] The change has effectively made the Title
field useless. When adding a new episode now, instead of typing this:
{{Episode list/sublist|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19 |Title = Episode Title |RTitle = <ref>episode reference</ref> }}
it will be necesssary to type:
{{Episode list/sublist|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19 |RTitle = "Episode Title"<ref>episode reference</ref> }}
This makes it overly complicated for inexperienced editors, even moreso when you consider that we normally remove references after episodes have aired by deleting the RTitle line. Now we can't be that quick. Instead the RTitle field will have to be renamed and the quotes removed. I've posted about this at Module talk:Episode list, [17] but others may need to become involved if we're to stop it happening again, and again.... -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. My addition of a "series overview" table to List of Smallville episodes per WP:TVOVERVIEW has been met with objections. A neutral editor's take would be appreciated (and WP:TV is obviously directly related). The conversation can be found at Talk:List of Smallville episodes#Series overview table. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 20:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
QI, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Bilorv (talk) (c) 20:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion about former programs (or not) of One Magnificent Morning in whether one can assume by schedule if a program is no long in the line up thus a former program. Also, whether or nor Boomtron is a Reliable source. Spshu ( talk) 15:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Wonder Pets about whether or not to move the article to Wonder Pets!, which contains an exclamation mark. There are numerous similar articles, like Yo Gabba Gabba!, All Grown Up!, Go, Diego, Go! and Hey Arnold!. (Does Nickelodeon add exclamations to everything?) and there are other examples of non-TV-related articles like Wham!. (In Wham!, I notice that the exclamation appears in prose numerous times.) I think a lot of kids feel that the logo should be a determining factor, although WP:TITLETM says that independent sources should determine the title. What then are these independent sources? Do we use sites like TVGuide, which uses "Wonder Pets!" in their episode listings? Or do we care more about books, newspapers, etc? Tis not quite clear, but perhaps it should be. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this template (concerning the TV show that auditioned Dorothys for Lloyd Webber's production of The Wizard of Oz) does anything useful -- all the information in it are contained in the article about the show and in the relevant category. If others agree, can someone please nominate it for deletion and then let us know so that we can comment? Please also let the WP:MUSICALS project know. Thanks! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.
The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.
You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.
We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.
Link to Research Page: m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgrobison ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:GA article From The Doctor to my son Thomas had a couple quote boxes at time of promotion to GA quality.
Now there's a discussion about use of those quote boxes.
Please see discussion, at Talk:From_The_Doctor_to_my_son_Thomas#Quote_boxes.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see ongoing deletion discussion for Ron Wear, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a draft article I'm creating that is a known miniseries and I do not know how to disambiguate it (it does need one). Looking at Category:American television miniseries, I see a disparity between (TV miniseries) and (miniseries). Which one would be the better one to use? (FYI, the draft is for the Marvel The Defenders Netflix miniseries.) - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
So whos doing the testing for pbs or are the just pulling this stuff out of thin air? I would like to see more information on this because half the show is about genetics and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornersss ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I apologize.I ended up on the wrong page and was just as confused. Cornersss ( talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute between me and Favre1fan93 about international broadcast on Agent Carter. Is it limited to only English-speaking countries? I added the Middle East and Southeast Asian broadcasts because they air it in English. Maybe changing WP:TVINTL to include all countries that air shows in English? Dcbanners ( talk) 11:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That is a slippery slope to go down, I cannot think of the last time I've seen any project regulate such specifics in articles like that. Film doesn't do it, and that is our closest medium (they are released in far more diverse markets as well). I'll be interested to see what others think (though, it would probably be best to have this discussion at the MOS than on the main project page). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Cyphoidbomb:, what we will need to do is decide here what we want to do and how it should look. Then, we go to the MOS and make an official proposal. Following that, we will need to do legitimate "canvassing" to all the projects to let them know of the proposed change to give them ample time to either agree or disagree. This way, no one can say we're hiding anything. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, could use some feedback at Talk:Teen Titans Go! (TV series). Users (probably the same person/people) keeps adding romance content that appears to me as speculative and non-noteworthy. I'm not familiar with the series, so if anyone has a better take on what the user is adding and can tailor it for inclusion so that it doesn't come off as speculative and crufty, I'd appreciate that. Feedback on the talk page would also be appreciated, since the user hasn't yet responded to discussion on their talk page or the article's talk page. If the content is sound, then by all means we can include it, but right now it's coming across as crush cruft. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
For a long time it has been standard practice to list episode titles as they are shown on-screen or in reliable sources, especially when the reliable source is authoritative, such as a press release. This includes capitalisation. However, MOS:CT seems at odds with this practice and I was wondering how we as a project see this issue. Using on-screen or WP:RS capitalisation is never usually an issue, but I've been having an issue at NCIS: Los Angeles (season 6) over this with an IP who refuses to discuss. On-screen the episode title is all-caps, but the press release shows all words capitalised. [18] If we decide to follow MOS:CT (which is only a guideline after all), then we should probably address this in MOS:TV. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
-- [[
User:Edokter]] {{
talk}}
15:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)I think that this article needs to be updated. -- Gce ( talk) 00:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
For the past several years, I have been dealing with low-speed vandalism regarding the official trademarked spellings for several television shows because the online fandoms for these TV shows disagree with how the trademarks were filed and prefer alternate versions that appear in no reliable sources. The articles are as follows:
The words on these pages that cause issues are "Buddyloid", "Metaloid", and "Vaglass". At Talk:Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters#Final statement on Vaglass, Buddyloid, and Metaloid, I have gone over the evidence as to why the L spellings are used on Wikipedia, as they are the only spellings in use in reliable sources (outside of the exactly one instance of an alternate spelling appearing on screen briefly extremely early into the TV show's broadcast).
The word in contention on this page is "Tajadol". The proof for this spelling comes from these officially licensed products' packaging as well as the TV show's official website. I had not attempted to get this onto a talk page until now.
There are also peripheral issues with the titling of Himitsu Sentai Gorenger where people prefer "Goranger" over what was recently found to be the official trademarked name now in use on the article, but it has been covered at Talk:Himitsu Sentai Gorenger#Proper title translation? where people have been ignorant of the spelling for years despite blatant usage on props in the show.
With the pending arbitration sanctions against me, I fear that my ability to prevent vandalism to these pages to bad-faith change the spellings against consensus will be hampered or willfully exploited by people to spite me. This has already recently happened at Tokumei Sentai Go-Busters and has happened in the past at Kamen Rider OOO (character). I would just like more eyes on these pages to watch for these bad faith changes.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜) 20:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
1st NVS Awards Brazil was nominated for deletion over a week ago but there has been no discussion. Comments would therefore be appreciated at the deletion discussion, which may be found here. Thank you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a ongoing discussion at Talk:The Blacklist (TV series)#The Blacklist regarding the " The Blacklist" section. All interested are welcome to comment. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 07:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
I have a question about the listing of "centric episodes" in the {{ infobox character}} template. I checked MOS:TV#Character article structure and this talk page's archives, but wasn't able to find anything specific regarding this so I thought I'd ask.
The parameter " lbl#" is being used to add "Centric episode(s)" info to (pretty much) all the infoboxes of the character pages of the The Walking Dead. I'm not exactly sure what criteria are being used to determine what is "centric". This kind of information seems, at least to me, to be pretty subjective at best, especially since some episodes are being listed as "centric" for multiple characters. Isn't this kind of information just original research?
Another concern I have is that for a main character like Rick Grimes (for some reason that article is not listed as being under the purview of this WikiProject), practically every episode could be considered to be "centric", couldn't it? Currently, there are 17 episodes listed as "centric" in that article's infobox and I expect there's going to be more added as the series goes on. I've looked at some other character pages from popular TV series such as Tony Soprano, Rachel Green, Hawkeye Pierce, Archie Bunker, Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jerry Seinfeld (character), Jack Bauer, etc. and none of the infoboxes on those pages have "Centric episode(s)" listed. So, I am wondering if "Centric episode(s)" is something unique to The Walking Dead articles.
Anyway, I just thought I'd ask here and see what others might have to say before bringing it up on each article's talk page. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm starting this discussion here as to centralize it (see WP:TALKCENT) and because it concerns a matter that confuses me. I reverted Trivialist here at the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article; as seen in that diff-link, he tagged the article with Template:Primary sources, which states, in part, "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." I stated with my revert, "There are plenty of non- WP:Primary sources in this article. Primary sources are fine for the plot section." I then saw that Trivialist came to the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article because of a dispute he had with an IP at the Tyreese article. I'm not seeing the IP's point of referring Trivialist to the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article, since whether or not an article "relies too much on references to primary sources" is not dependent upon another article; the Shane Walsh (The Walking Dead) article clearly has more non-WP:Primary sources than the Tyreese article does. And if Trivialist is tagging articles with the "primary sources" tag because the plot summaries don't use WP:Secondary sources, that is faulty reasoning. I reiterate that primary sources are fine for the plot section. Look at the WP:Good article Clark Kent (Smallville), for example. Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Plot summaries, the plot section does not necessarily need references.
Since I've pinged Trivialist to this talk page via WP:Echo, I'll alert the IP of this section on the IP's talk page. That stated, edits like this and this make me think that the IP is Thelonggoneblues. And if you are that IP, Thelonggoneblues, you need to start consistently signing in instead of making it seem like you are two different people; do see what Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts states about editing while logged out. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: Going by this compared to this, and Thelonggoneblues trying to remove this section, it's safe to state that the IP and Thelonggoneblues are the same person. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I think time should be included below the date in the info-box for awards shows. With a quick glance, I want to be able to see the date AND time of the event without having to read the whole article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavi333 ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I just tagged ITV as {{ dabconcept}}. I was editing an article recently that mentioned a British person worked for ITV. How could I possibly know which of these many entries to point it to? This is a classic case where there needs to be an article called ITV about the series of British television networks so it doesn't take an expert to figure out how to make a simple link. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 15:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Requesting comments at Talk:Little Einsteins#IMDb reviews, TV.com reviews, user reviews... Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Should main characters who are absent from an episode be mentioned on episode list pages in the table? Example: [19]. In my opinion, it's not important and should but be listed, but an IP editor is insisting it should be on my user talk page, so I'm seeking other opinions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 01:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This might be a question better suited for the village pump, but I'm having difficulty with making a table for List of Action League Now! episodes. Before that, the page listed the episodes using bullets, so I did some regex to conform the data to a wikitable. Right now, however, it's only showing the first season's table and nothing else. Can someone figure this out? Thanks. 23W 05:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I've put Only Fools and Horses up for review of its featured status at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Only Fools and Horses/archive1. Improvements and comments welcome. Bencherlite Talk 11:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello friends, I think I might be misinterpreting TVUPCOMING, which would be embarrassing, but hey, it happens. In these edits, I've moved content from the (basically) empty Episode section to the lead, which seems consistent with what we do for newly announced seasons per TVUPCOMING. However, this is a new series, not a new season—Should the Episode section exist in its current format? Or do we move that content to the lead until eps start to be sourceable? I don't have a preference either way, I just want to make sure I'm doing the preferred thing. Input requested. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Avatar: The Last Airbender#Serious issues with ratings info. Thanks.
Mdrnpndr (
talk)
23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In November 2014 I nominated " Clown in the Dumps" for GA. A user expressed intent to review it in January 2015, but has not been active on Wikipedia since. If anybody has the time, I would be more than grateful for somebody to pick up and do the review. '''tAD''' ( talk) 17:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not particularity agree with the way MOS:TVCAST is currently run. I feel that the cast list should be arranged in episode frequency from most appearances to least. In a show like The King of Queens the current format doesn't work at all, as Lisa Rieffel is in 5 episodes she is never mentioned again but some what gets named the third main character.
This is how it is currently listed
This is how i feel it should be listed
It is much clearer for someone who hasn't watched the show who the main characters are. Please consider this and reply if you agree as I feel this system is corrupt and need to be fixed. Thank You JohnGormleyJG ( talk) 10:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I love the TV show Babylon 5 - it is one of my all-time favorites. But Wikipedia's coverage of the fictional Babylon 5 universe looks more like a Babylon 5 Wikia site than an encyclopedia's coverage ... see Index of Babylon 5 articles for the absurd number of Babylon 5 in-universe articles. I have prodded a few and boldly redirected others and a lot of the ones listed here don't actually go to separate articles - they are (correctly) redirects to something like Civilizations in Babylon 5. But there are still articles on ships that were only used in a single episode and other similar things that really don't belong in an encyclopedia. I'm throwing this out there for anyone interested. -- B ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice to request editors to join the discussion regarding potential WP:SPECULATION material on Constantine (TV series). Discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 02:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
With the recent helicopter crash in Argentina, it is apparent that there is no category covering deaths during filming of reality TV programmes. I'm sure that these are not the only ones to have happened as I remember the death whilst filming Noel's House Party in the 1990s (not mentioned in the article though). So, do we need Category:Reality TV deaths? Mjroots ( talk) 07:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed that genre info, especially in infoboxes, is largely unsourced. I know Cyphoidbomb has been helping fend off the folks who keep adding unsourced genres (esp. comedy-drama and black comedy) to pages. I am going to start editing to add sources, primarily on cartoon pages. Just wondering if anyone wants to join me as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing is absolutely required for genres in TV show infoboxes per the template documentation. Any unsourced genres should be removed from such infoboxes (but not necessarily the corresponding articles) on sight. Mdrnpndr ( talk) 21:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Three hard to document shows for the 1970s English TV section are Sky, Andra and The Eagle of the Ninth. The first has a name that gets a swamp of mis-hits, the second had its master tape overwritten by a Singaporean game show and the last has the most documentation, about three lines on the scriptwriter. These were the best young adult shows I saw as a kid, and somebody should save them if they can. Jsemmel ( talk) 13:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have just created Clem, a French TV series. As I am not familiar with pages about TV series (I am mostly working on models/fashion related pages), could someone help me by adding the episodes from this page on the French wikipedia? Thanks in advance. -- MirandaKeurr ( talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The article about Mind Meld, a film about William Shatner's and Leonard Nimoy's experiences in the Star Trek television series, has an ongoing featured article candidacy here. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix ( talk) 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Do TV-show running times in the TV infobox require a citation to verify them, or are editors allowed to measure them with a stopwatch ourselves? WikiProject Film requires citations for movie running times. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 01:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
|runtime=
parameter at
Template:Infobox television should be simplified. So the discussion is a mite bigger. I can see both sides of this issue for a number of reasons and I don't think there's always a clear either-or here. There is a general inconsistency in how various TV programs are described in the real world, because sometimes they're described in terms of the block of air time they occupy (i.e. 15-minute, 30-minute, 60-minute, 90-minute, 2-hour) and sometimes they're described in terms of their rough segment length. A show like Happy Days is considered a half-hour sitcom.
60 Minutes is considered an hour-long news magazine although the article ascribes a 42 minute running time to the latter. I'm not sure that measuring a current broadcast with a stopwatch will be very helpful, especially when shows like Seinfeld and Friends are being sped up by TBS to fit in extra commercials.
[21]
[22] That makes verifiability a little difficult. Animated series are often categorized differently than half-hour sitcoms. Sometimes an animated series is picked up for a specific number of 5 minute shorts. Sometimes these shorts are lumped together to fill a certain block, and sometimes they are not and are used as interstitial programming. Sometimes an episode comprises two 11-minute shorts and are considered a "22 minute" series, though they might occupy a 30 minute block, and though they might not actually occupy a rigidly measured 22 minutes. (They might run long or short.) And when some sources report on these animation pickups, they sometimes refer to them in specific ways, like 52 x 13
[23] or 52 x 11, (and I'm having a bit of difficulty finding specifics on short notice, although they do exist) or a bunch of different ways depending on what their internal preference is. My feeling is that there might be more than one way to refer to these series, depending on how the production network promotes/categorizes/considers them.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
03:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section.. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows.The documentation, as it stands, does not override the requirements of WP:V, so WP:V vs WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not relevant at all. This RfC is asking if we should change the documentation to require citations, which is above and beyond what WP:V requires. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributednot everything. In this case the info is not likely to be challenged when the approximations are plausible and easy to verify. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
|runtime=
field of an infobox. I've seen cases where editors have argued over the length because they chose to include commercials, despite the documentation clearly saying not to include commercials, or where there is an argument as to whether a children's program had 11 or 22 minute episodes because some editors regard episodes to consist of 2 x 11 minute "segments" but these are few and far between. The actual runtime is rarely challenged though, so no, runtimes are not inherently 'likely to be challenged'". --
AussieLegend (
✉)
19:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
An editor doesn't have to put a "citation request" tag on every single infobox to challenge an infobox parameterby pointing out that RfC is an informal non-binding process, while adding {{ citation needed}} is a formal process. As such RfC doesn't have the same weight as adding {{ citation needed}}.
runtime
parameter only require that the figure "should be approximated". It provides an example of "22–26 minutes". Citing an individual film is easy, as film runtimes are widely published. TV episodes are not because they vary so widely. Even the runtimes seen occasionally on iTunes and Amazon are approximations. As Cyphoidbomb has indicated, some shows are sped up on TV but, generally, first-run airings are not making timing easy. This is based on several years of checking the 28,000+ episodes that I have available here. Contrary to Tenebrae's assertion, TV episodes are
primary sources and timing the episodes is permitted per
WP:CALC. Geraldo Perez is correct in stating that we shouldn't need references for stuff that is trivially verifiable such as episode length. Runtimes are essential parts of any episode so we certainly should not delete the parameter from the infobox as suggested by one editor. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
07:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)...all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The point of contention is if running times for TV series episodes is material "
likely to be challenged". My opinion is no, particularly for the approximations or ranges generally listed for and expected for half-hour-long or hour-long slotted TV episodes. In my opinion, times that deviate from the normal 22-23 or 45-46 times will be something likely to be challenged and should probably be referenced for support. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 23:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
tag added to run times on any shows I watch, so the likelihood appears minimal to me, of course based on my experience. I would probably investigate or tag weird times, though, and adding references if I had to investigate.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
00:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Anything you say — or that I would say — characterizing someone else's post is our interpretation. The above is solely your opinion. The editors who posted are quite capable of speaking for themselves. You don't like the fact they disagree with you, that they say Yes to citing, and it is highly inappropriate of you to try to twist other people's comments to say what you'd like them to say. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes if exact times are givenbut the added a caveat "If the run times are approximate ... this is unlikely to be disputed ... only require a citation if they are 'challenged or likely to be challenged'." A following editor voted yes, per the editor I quoted, but added
If the time is a range (ex: 22-25 minutes), I wouldn't think they needed to be cited. Both of these are effectively No votes based on the template instructions, which specify an approximate range. As Geraldo said, you need to read beyond the first word of the vote. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 10:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting that neither of the two editors arguing that they should be allowed to put in runtimes without citation have refused to answer a couple of critical questions.
They say the information is "easily observable" or "easily verifiable." How is time "observable"? And if the running time is "easily verifiable", exactly how is it "easily verifiable"? -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I find it interesting that neither of the two editors arguing that they should be allowed to put in runtimes without citation have refused to answer a couple of critical questions.Why do you find it interesting that neither of us have refused to answer? I'll remind you that I've explained how one can verify the runtime at Template talk:Infobox television, in the discussion prior to this RfC and there are 4 editors who have argued that citations are not necessary. Of course there are other editors who have said that citations are not required for approximate times. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
If the run times are approximate (e.g., half-hour including advertisements), this is unlikely to be disputed; they need to be vertifiable but only require a citation if they are "challenged or likely to be challenged", while another said
If the time is a range (ex: 22-25 minutes), I wouldn't think they needed to be cited.Since the infobox only requires approximate times, those are effectively "no" votes, as already explained. A third editor said
they should be cited but they should only be include infoboxes in articles about a particular episode not an entire series. In series articles, this information is better suited in the episode table. That vote can be discarded as there's nothing close to consensus to remove running times from the infobox altogether. Only your vote supports citing all runtimes. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"for new programmes the iplayer has a running time, and for old TV a dvd on it's cover usually has the total running time."So you can provide citations, but you say you're refusing to. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I started discussion topics in two articles, but no one is coming.
JSH-alive/ talk/ cont/ mail 15:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Nickandmore.com has posted on their main page that they are no longer active. "NICKandMORE has come to an end. The website will remain a permanent archive." Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)