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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Hey guys. I've been working for a few years now on articles for the TV series Millennium, and I've gotten round to doing some work on the cast and crew. The problem is that they're almost all people who haven't really been thrown into the spotlight enough to have a lot of reliably sourced information about them out there ( Lance Henriksen and Terry O'Quinn being the main exceptions). So I'm not really requesting anything active, but if anyone working on other material happens to notice any of these names popping up in a source, I'd really appreciate a ping about it so I can make use of it (and if anyone is interested in any of these names for their work on anything else, I'd be glad to split a collaboration). I'm mainly hoping to turn up some more on Megan Gallagher first and foremost since the article now is probably a few hundred words from a half-decent GA, but anything else anyone spots would be awesome. Again, just if you recognise a name from sourcing anything else of your own, let me know, but don't be going out of your way looking since I'm already doing that. Cheers! GRAPPLE X 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The WP:RfC is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone help WP:TNT this? Right now most of its content is WP:Fancruft. sst flyer 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This category of American animated television series has a lot of articles in it also tagged with subcategories of that category, e.g. Category:1990s American animated television series. This would make that a non-diffusing subcategory, but nationality is not merely a "special characteristic of interest" as the guideline has it, so I've started removing the category from articles, but now I'm doubting myself. Is a rollback in order? 23W 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello I wonder if you can create this: List of international telenovelas broadcast by Venevision. I know that there List of programs broadcast by Venevisión. But what I'm trying to say is that I would like to create a list for decades telenovela non-Venevision, but were transmitted on that channel. Something like this List of telenovelas of Televisa in 2010s. Maybe it's wrong, but is not, ask why. If I say it's not possible, I'll understand :).-- Philip J Fry (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Comicbookmovie.com. A WP:Permalink for it is here. This source has affected a lot of articles, and this discussion is important. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for references to cite for the Nominations at the 10th TCA Awards.
I can already find plenty of sources that only just cite the Winners, but I want a cite for the Nominees.
Specifically because I'm drafting up a Featured List drive for Bill Nye the Science Guy, and I want to find a WP:RS source that indeed confirms the television show was nominated for the 10th TCA Awards.
Please ping or message me on my user talk page if you find anything.
Any help would be appreciated,
— Cirt ( talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emily Kinney#Did Kinney leave the show in 2014 or 2015?. There is a dispute about when Kinney officially left The Walking Dead, with two editors stating that her official leave from the show should be noted as 2015 instead of 2014 because "she appeared in a hallucination, and after that she has appeared in a flashback using archive footage." They state that because she was listed in the title sequence in 5x09, and because "[w]e do go by the airing date, not the filming date. [...] [I]t is standard practice to go by the airing dates." Another editor and I have brought up the issue of what WP:Reliable sources state on the matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
"Her character played a huge role in the show overall." HUH? Do you even watch this show? She spent most of her time in her first two seasons standing around in the background doing nothing! "So of course sources refer to her as a main star." So now you have a superhuman superpower to know what everything on the internet secretly means? What it actually says means nothing because you (and only you) know the secret meaning?"
ChamithN, our main point is supported by various WP:Reliable sources. And that main point is what I stated above: "The WP:Reliable secondary sources, at this point in time, only cite 2014/the 'Coda' episode as Kinney's departure from the series; this is the case whether we state 'departure,' 'exit' or 'left,' which are obviously all synonyms in this regard. They do not list any of these additional appearances as the point she departed the series or as her final episode. This is a matter of interpreting a WP:Primary source via the credits vs. what WP:Secondary sources state. This is clear by various WP:Reliable sources on this matter. As seen by the " Emily Kinney departed The Walking Dead" Google search and by the " Emily Kinney left the series" Google search, sources only cite 2014/the "Coda" episode as her departure from the series, even recently. So, yes, I do not think we should be stating that Kinney was a main cast member/series regular for any of these later episodes, or that she departed the series in any of these later episodes, when no WP:Reliable secondary sources support that. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, 'reporter' or not. None of these sources [, [which range from late 2014 to just about any point in 2015,] have been proven wrong on this matter. They cannot be proven wrong by an interpretation of a primary source. We cannot use primary sources to contradict secondary sources. The WP:Primary sources/WP:Secondary sources policy is clear about that."
So when it comes to edits like this and this one by Cebr1979, he could simply be reverted and a WP:Reliable source could be added to the content he removed. To do so now, however, would result in a WP:Edit war because he is a serious WP:Edit warrior. This is why I will likely be settling this matter with a well-formatted WP:RfC, and I will not let him bog it down if I do. You and I should refrain from responding to him if I start such a discussion; otherwise, it will end up like the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Three editors and I have been discussing at Talk:Scream Queens (2015 TV series)#Cast and characters quotations. I don't agree with LLarrow's approach, and I ask for this Wikiproject's opinions of if the quotations should be removed or not. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was reopened. I want it to be closed, already. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
We are having a discussion at Talk:The Duke of Edinburgh Awards about whether being a popular TV show means that every episode should receive an article -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a popular enough programme to have an article for each episode. Each episode must show notability of its own, as WP:NOTINHERITED. The article is essentially a plot only summary of a television episode and fails to establish notability so I've nominated it for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Duke of Edinburgh Awards. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
For some time now, an IP editor has been working on List of Rugrats episodes. At first these edits appeared to have been good faith, but many dubious edits have been identified. However, some of the dubious edits are supported by contradictory reliable sources. For example, this edit changed dates for two episodes with Zap2Itsaying the first episode aired in 2002, while TVGuide says the second episode aired in 2004. The problem here is that the two episodes in question aired one after another and it seems impossible that the first episode aired in 2002 with the station pressing paused for 2 years before airing the second episode. The Zap2It source seems more credible given the timing of other episodes, but for other episodes (especially the earlier seasons) TVGuide is more credible. The copyright notice at the end of the episode pair also supports the Zap2It source for the episodes that I've used as an example. Rugrats episodes were, as far as I can remember, and based on the copies I have here, aired in the same pairs and each episode included its title, so it's not possible to mix them up. I've tried to find a reliable, and consistent source for this series' episodes but haven't had much success. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I just got through reverting 190.172.168.114 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character at various The Walking Dead character articles. An example is here. I reverted the IP for the same reason that I reverted an IP with regard to List of Teen Wolf characters: We do not treat characters as though they are permanently alive or dead with a "status" field; the reason why is pretty much due to what MOS:PLOT states: By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE). At any particular point in the story there is a "past" and a "future", but whether something is "past" or "future" changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous "present".
This IP has found a way to get around Template:Infobox character not including such a field. So what should be done about this? Does anyone other than the IP agree with adding the field? I don't know if this field is used at any other character articles for shows or otherwise, and if the IP got the field from one of those cases, but, in my opinion, it should be removed in all cases. I'll leave a note at Template talk:Infobox character, Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series), and IP 190.172.168.114's talk page, about this matter, redirecting them to this section for discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There are currently two discussions underway regarding MOS:IDENTITY at the village pump. One of these is relevant to the TV project. It addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. For example, if a person changes their sexuality and name, should this be reflected in an article about a TV series that ended 32 years ago? The discussion may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.
The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.
Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
There is some very concerning content at The View (U.S. TV series) in the " Notable episodes" section; in particular, the two subsections titled "Doctor's stethoscope controversy" and "Refusal to hire people with black names". I have not edited the article, nor do I plan to. Putting aside the misleading headings, these subsections send up all kinds of warning flags, especially with regard to violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. This show has been on the air for nearly 20 years and there have been an endless amount of controversial incidents and statements by various co-hosts, like these, that received wide media coverage for a few days, then disappeared for good.
It should be noted that the editor who added all the "black names" content first put it in Raven-Symoné, then, over the past few days, added all of it into The View via dozens of edits. So now, all of the content is in both articles.
Since these controversy incidents were just a few of literally dozens of similar random incidents over the years, I don't even know if any of the content from the two subsections should be included, let alone in such massive detail. In any case, I have no idea where to even begin with this, so I hope that some interested and experienced editors with TV show articles could review the entire "Notable episodes" section and make necessary edits to eliminate the over-the-top tabloid feel and turn it back into an encylopedia article.
Czoal ( talk) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(moved from "Need your opinion on something..." on from my talk page to here for better forum) Geraldo Perez ( talk) 13:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo, can you share your opinion on this this reversion at The 100 (TV series)? The use of 'Series overview' sections with just a link the the "Episodes list" page and the 'series overview' table is extremely common at TV series articles (including, I'll note for example, at Girl Meets World), so I'm trying to determine if there's any policy basis for AlexTheWhovian's revision or not. Pinging AussieLegend on this as well, for another opinion... Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The general guideline is we don't create sections that only house a link to a page (those are "See Also" sections) and we don't create multiple sections of the same topic. Not unless they are subsections of a main topic (e.g., Production --> Sub: Writing, Filming, etc.). In this case, what is being reverted is the unnecessary creation of a section that basically summarizes the episode information. You have a premise section that contains prose, and then an "overview" was created for the dates and numbers of episodes. They are both the same thing and should be housed together. It's about efficient, professional organization of articles. I get that a lot of pages do this, but they should be cleaned up to be more reflective of how to organize an article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
the fundamental concept that drives the plot of a film or other story. The series overview is more closely a summary of the broadcast history of the plot, not a record of the premise. If the table belongs anywhere, it should be in the "broadcast" section of an article. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to thank Geraldo Perez and AussieLegend for their comments here – what they say has been my understanding of the situation. I absolutely agree that there is no "Guideline basis" for the proposition that we need to remove the 'Series overview' or 'Episodes' sections from TV series articles. More to the point, use of these kinds of sections has been a long-standing practice at TV series articles, and the use of these sections shouldn't be "thrown away" like this before a widespread discussion (possibly even an RfC) is held to achieve consensus on the issue first. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
If a separate episodes section is needed so badly, why not have it like Haven, Once Upon a Time and Castle? That is, where the section not only contains the link to the LoE page and the transcluded Series Overview table, but prose (as we're requesting) in the form of premiere and season renewals? Alex| The| Whovian 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
So are the proponents of removing 'Episodes' sections at TV articles / adding text to them also proposing doing the same to 'series overview' and 'episodes' sections at List of episodes / season pages? Just wondering because this conversation seems pretty arbitrary/inconsistent to me (not that I'm suggesting breaking up any of these sections). What problem are we trying to solve here? -- Wikipedical ( talk) 01:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.
This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.
The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the MOS, "new cast members [are] added to the end of the list". But then, characters that enter a series earlier would be higher up in the character list, no matter how soon they leave the series. Thus, it is common practice to order (in particular) the recurring characters by number of episodes they appear in (to match IMDb style).
For currently airing seasons, according to the MOS, new characters start at the end of the list but then are diligently sorted up after every new episode (which is missing in the MOS), e.g., Empire (season 2), Scream Queens (2015 TV series).
At least for recurring cast, this IMDb sorting is used in a very large number of pages of past shows, too (all seasons of the following shows: American Horror Story, 24, Pretty Little Liars, Louie, The Good Wife, Community, The Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, Mad Men, Angel, Justified, Bones, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Alias, Damages, One Tree Hill, and there are many more).
This should probably be reflected in the MOS, too? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I've noticed a minor trend in some TV articles, and this seems the most appropriate place to get some consensus happening. Across numerous articles, I see the use of blue to indicate low ratings numbers, and the use of red to indicate high ratings numbers. This seems the exact opposite of what it should be (assuming it should be at all). Red connotes danger, a warning, so in TV, red seems the proper indication for "uh oh, this show's doing poorly." Any thoughts? Anyone care? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Correction Hey everybody--My communication was faulty: They're not using the color to indicate "hey, this is a great rating" or "hey, this is a bad rating", which would obviously be WP:OR. They're using colors to indicate the highest and lowest numbers in a range. 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 9. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, Kalyeserye is a strange case. Quick background: there is a long-running show in the Philippines called Eat Bulaga!, some sort of daily daytime variety show. Within that show, is a segment called "Kalyeserye" a somewhat serialized show-within-a-show that has recurring characters, and seems to center on a love story between a "love couple" Alden and Yaya Dub. Now here's where it gets weird: It's mostly improvised, as far as I can tell although there seems to be some semblance of a story, which they do in a kind of soap opera parody style. Some of the characters seem to not actually speak, rather, they pantomime to other actors' voices and sound effects and communicate with one another over a video chat app. I really am having a hard time explaining it, because it doesn't make any frickin' sense! Here's a video (official GMA network site) to give you an idea. At 2:19, one of the Lolas (grandmothers) has a dramatic telephone call over dramatic music (perhaps speaking to the show's Mysterious Caller?). There is also interaction between some of the characters and the show hosts. Blah blah blah.
Anyhow, this weirdness apparently makes it very difficult for editors to write episode summaries, for instance this one, which introduces a lot of facts from the episode, but leaves you wondering what the hell the story is. And if we don't really understand what the story is, how does anyone write effective episode summaries? Some of the earlier ones at List of Kalyeserye episodes come close, but then some of the more recent ones really go off the rails. It seems that the tendency is to just point out things that happened, rather than to deliver a cohesive explanation of plot, if there is one. Also, the main Kalyeserye article doesn't do a fantastic job of explaining what the series is. Anyone have any thoughts about how to improve these articles? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, I'll mention that the show is live, so I imagine WP:V factors in here. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Any help would be appreciated. :)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27#US_miniseries_decade_templates.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I considered posting this message on the assessment page, but figured this talk page was on more watchlists. I have worked on Eaten Alive (TV special) some, but not enough to feel comfortable with the content. The individual who expanded the article to its current state does not seem interested in nominating it for Good status, but I think it may meet criteria. If there is a project member who enjoys promoting article to GA status, this may be an easy project to take on. Thanks for your consideration, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 06:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be great to have input from this project's editors on the naming conventions for the upcoming "event series" of The X-Files, which is being called "Season 10", "revival", "reboot", "event", "miniseries".... Please chime in, thanks: Talk:The X-Files (2016 miniseries)#Season 10?. Jmj713 ( talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have found there is not a consistent way to notate season and episode for television series. Sometimes they are written as 1X19; 01x19; season 01, episode 19; or season 1, episode 19. Which is preferable? (I lean towards the last one. This was previously discussed at Manual of Style/Dates and numbers) LA ( T) @ 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and giving readers some extra help, I generally write something like
season four episode "Murder in The Air". When referring to a series of episodes in a season, I use "season 4, episodes 1, 2, 4, 5, 17–23" or something like that (spelling out the numbers in such a case is messy at best). -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the geeky formats is they are not used consistently, on or off WP, and they are meaningless to people not already familiar with them. If for some reason we were to settle on one of them, s2e13 is much clearer than the alternatives. Also, the "x" in the examples given above is actually × and should be rendered thus, per MOS:NUM. There's no need to use a leading zero (that is mostly done with TV-pirating torrents, for alphanumeric sorting reasons, and torrent sites mostly use s02e03 format, anyway, not "02x13"). If we actually came to a consensus to use ×-format in a table, it should be "The BFG-9000" (2×13), "Return of the BFG-9000" (10×3), but the s2e13 format really is easier to understand. If for some reason we want a leading zero (I argue against it), that would only be done for the short numeric form: s02e13 or maybe 02×13, not for plain English: season 02, episode 04 or abbreviations thereof; we don't use leading zeroes for any other such constructions (e.g. dates, measurements, book volume numbers, etc.), also per MOS:NUM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we only include TV shows that have begun production in "List of programs broadcast by X"-type articles? TV networks perpetually have thousands of shows in development, and only choose around a few to go into production. I cut a few shows from Nickelodeon's programs article since no further word about them was made since they were initially announced.
So, to re-iterate my question, should we only include shows that have begun production in these kinds of articles? Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 13:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I recently modified {{ Infobox television}} and {{ Infobox television season}} to comply with WP:IMGSIZE, which states that image sizes should not be forced without good reason. This change should not have been noticeable, but it does make image formatting easier. In the old days it was necessary to fully format the infobox image: e.g. | image = [[File:image name.jpg|250px|caption text|alt=alt text for image]]. Implementation of Module:InfoboxImage some time ago supported the old format but added some parameters so that it was only necessary to include unformatted information:
| image = image name.jpg | image_size = 250 | image_alt = alt text for image | caption = caption text
The latest changes support both formats but now also allows for automatic image sizing based on user preferences. Most TV articles that I checked used 250px as the default image size, so this is reflected in the infobox changes meaning that, since captions are not normally necessary, only the following needs to be entered:
| image = image name.jpg | image_alt = alt text for image
In the event that a size other than 250px needs to be specified, the image_upright
parameter my be used to specify the image size:
| image = image name.jpg | image_upright = 1.22 | image_alt = alt text for image
The value required for image_upright
is easily calculated by dividing the desired image size by 220. For a 270px image, image_upright
= 270 / 220 = 1.23. A convenient table has been included in the template documentation. Please note that the previous methods of formatting are still supported. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
07:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
On any page of an "episodes' list", to prevent the disorder I found a system: in place of "width:%" insert this method (<'br />) on a determined space of a title or writers of that episode. Example on the animated series Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!:
Luigi1090( talk) 11:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Episode count templates contains a number of templates that consist of "onlyinclude" tags and a raw episode count, and occasionally a date. All of these templates have been nominated for deletion. The discussions for each may be found at the following locations:
-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
All of the templates in the category have now been nominated so I have completely updated the above post. Most of the discussions are on the same page. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
All of the above discussions have now closed as delete, with the exception of the discussions for {{ South Park episode count}} and {{ The Simpsons episode count}}, which have closed as "No consensus". However, even these templates are no longer in use. It seems to me that we should be discouraging use of these templates, as they are unnecessary. If it is necessary to transclude episode counts there is a simpler way than creating templates specifically for the purpose. Simply wrapping the episode count in <includeonly> and </includeonly> so that you see something like "| num_episodes = <includeonly>140</includeonly>" allows the episode count to be transcluded anywhere. At the article where the count is to be transcluded, it is done the same way that we do when transcluding episode lists. Instead of adding "{{Futurama episode count}}" to an article, you add "{{:Futurama}}", which is a lot simpler. This is the process now being used at many episode lists. See, for example, this edit and this one, in which AlexTheWhovian added the feature to Scorpion and List of Scorpion episodes. This is far easier than creating {{ Scorpion episode count}} and having to update it constantly, since we already update the main series articles. Opinions? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Got the message on my talk page, not sure what I can contribute to the discussion. I implemented the "includeonly" tags on multiple series' pages after finding another where it had been done, and had only one user have an issue with it before I explained it and the accepted it. Also not sure how we can implement it within the infobox template... Adding the tags will affect the transclusion of the template itself. (Noted, I'm also guilty of creating {{ DW episode count}}, where this transcludes to two instances on Doctor Who and two instances on List of Doctor Who serials, so it only needs updating once and not in four locations.) Alex| The| Whovian 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Dino Dan is in need of assistance. A copy-edit has been done but it still needs an infobox and logo. 108.20.47.212 ( talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a move discussion going on at Talk:Bag of Bones (film) which needs more participants to build consensus. The underlying question is whether a miniseries can have only two installments, or whether the minimum number of segments is three; and, if consensus is that three is the minimum, what to call two-part television events that are longer than a movie but shorter than a miniseries. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to the conversation there. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone here watch Bad Girls Club? Back on 8 November I made several corrections to the article only to find yesterday that all of the fixes had been reverted, predominantly by one anonymous editor who seems to be asserting ownership over the article and doesn't use edit summaries or respond to posts on his talk page. Virtually every edit since 8 September by an IP or newly registered editor has been vandalism or the addition of unsourced content. The vandalism is easily fixed but I have no idea what in the article is correct as none of it is sourced and it really needs somebody familiar with the series to have a look. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching List of The Big Bang Theory characters for a long time and have been frustrated by the amount of fancruft creeping into this article. A good example is the section titled "Appearing in one scene only", which I removed earlier. [3] However, as has happened more than once in the article's history, the removed content has mostly been restored, this time to a section titled " Appearing in one episode only". [4] The justification for this restoration is "Joyce Kim was mentioned in several episodes besides the one scene in which she appeared", "minor characters who are relatives of the main characters (Amy's mother, and Raj's cousin) should also be listed" and "Analeigh Tipton, should also be listed given that Tipton appeared on the show in a different capacity". [5] The entire article, some 17,200 words, is supported by 64 citations using {{ cite episode}} and two from tv.com, leaving only 9 that are non-primary, reliable sources. This article could really do with some extra eyes and editors as I'm having a hell of job trying to keep the article under control. We really shouldn't have such crufty articles for any serhies, let alone one as popular as this. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I object to the massive removal of content that was done in 7 edits a few days ago.
I would say that all characters that have more than a casual interaction with the story should be included. Examples of characters that should not be included are: a clerk at the DMV, a mall security guard, the minister who married Leonard and Penny. Basically their interactions with the story was just casual. -- Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 17:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments requested here re: the ordering of The Backyardigans episodes and, as a lesser matter, MOS:CT. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for celebrity bio articles to contain detailed week-by-week analysis of a current reality show that they're appearing on? I cut some from a biography article recently, as it seemed clearly undue emphasis and failed the WP:10YEARS rule of thumb, but an IP added it back saying it was "often standard for contestants on reality shows". Is it? (Or is that maybe just for reality show contestants who have no other career? The bio in question was an actress with decades of other TV work.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for someone to help with updates to the Colleen Bell article and I wonder if anyone on this project might be willing to help get things started. In addition to being the current U.S. ambassador to Hungary, Bell is also a television producer known for working on The Bold and the Beautiful. The Producing career section of the Colleen Bell article says she is producer of the show, followed by a few sentences about the show itself. Since the Wikipedia entry is about Colleen Bell, not the show, I think it best if this section focuses more on her work with the program. ( You can find the request here.) Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest: I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell through my firm, Beutler Ink, and SKD Knickerbocker, so I won't make any edits myself. Can someone look at my request and make the changes if they seem appropriate? Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Should there always be season articles whenever there is more then one season? For example, Younger (TV series) has aired 12 episodes, with only one section of out-of-universe information on reception, and yet there is a separate List of Younger episodes and also Younger (season 1) and Younger (season 2) articles. I see there is WP:WHENSPLIT, and MOS:TV says season articles may be necessary for 80+ episodes. – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
While this example (Younger) may be inappropriate for splitting (although I completed it, since it was half-accomplished), I do believe MOS:TV should be updated to reflect both television and Wikipedia today. That '80+ episode' designation was inserted in March 2009, when serialized stories, limited/anthology series, and shorter seasons weren't as widespread as today. Also, TV series rarely even make it to 80+ episodes- Breaking Bad was 62. Moreover, at that time season articles weren't as well-maintained as they are today- now we have users adding much more information on production and reception, and many season pages that have become featured lists. I believe we need to address these changes and rewrite that section about season pages and splitting LOEs. I lean towards something broader- not a rigid episode count but whether there is enough information to split. Shows like American Horror Story and Fargo are shows that have obvious needs for season pages once they were renewed, since their seasons are completely different, and the pages would have new information on casting, locations, and production. Incredibly popular shows like Empire too make sense to have season pages once renewed, since inevitably there will be a lot of well-maintained work, too detailed for a series page. Procedural broadcast shows with less information are the ones that I would be more reluctant to split. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 01:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If we left "size" to editor discretion then pages would be split far earlier than they needed to for size reasons. It's happens quite frequently because someone "thinks" that it's too large when it fact it isn't large at all. That's why WP:SIZE actually has guidelines on when to split. The difficult nature is that it's based on readable prose, which is hard to determine without copying and pasting outside of the HTML code when dealing with tables. That's how the 80+ episodes was come up with, because that's roughly to the size that WP:SIZE dictates for splitting.
Yes, season articles are meant for more details. My point is that early is a show's life, those details are already on the main page and maybe another ancillary page. To create a season article after one or two seasons makes little sense when almost every ounce of detail for those seasons is likely on the main page. Depending on the show, there may not be a significant number of reviews for it (yes, some shows get tons of coverage...many do not). With regard to when in a show's life that a season page can or should be created, you have the GNG and you have a basic understanding that meeting the GNG by duplicating another page is not actually an appropriate reason to split. This is a reason why, if you're going to argue for details, you need a seasonal minimum established. Your main page needs to be large enough that trimming down the details to more summary level (so that the details can exist on a season page) makes sense. That doesn't make sense for any show after 1 season and rarely would I say that it make sense for a show after two seasons. Not unless that show has gotten a crazy amount of coverage and the main page is swamped with information overload. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
In August, Cebr1979 ( talk · contribs) began linking the season number in the episode infobox to the apropos article or section discussing that season. So far as I know, he only did this with Star Trek episodes. At the time, I was unfamiliar with this practice taking place anywhere, so I brought it up for discussion at the Star Trek WikiProject and at the infobox talk page itself. There was little-to-no discussion on the matter, with only Favre1fan93 ( talk · contribs) commenting that he felt such linking shouldn't be done. Cebr1979 took my inquiry as a vote against him or her linking, and so with two editors against such practice, declined to pursue it further.
Today, Cebr1979 has commented ( [6] [7]) that he or she intends to restart the practice of linking the season in the infobox. Despite Cebr1979's assumption, I don't have an opinion on this, but would like to get the community's wider input on the matter since it's something not done commonly (or at all) previously. Since I didn't have much luck in garnering input at the Star Trek WikiProject or the template talk page before, I'm bringing it up here hoping for the TV WikiProject's input on the matter. Thanks in advance! — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
For anyone wondering, this is the whole source for three conversations. Like, it's so minor I can't even believe it was ever even noticed... much less discussed! Cebr1979 ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
"The Adversary" | |
---|---|
Episode no. | Season
3 |
Hey all, could use some other eyes at Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes. There's a contingent of show fans who are insistent that an episode, "Minimus is Missing", which is coded by Disney as 223 is a S3 episode. I keep having the same circular discussion, so if anyone has anything different to add (since I very well could be being a little myopic about this), I welcome the input. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, anyone have any expertise in this? these edits introduced a few extra sister channels for Teletoon. Accurate? Or is someone playing around? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently had to re-delete an article that was essentially a list of every horror film broadcast on WakuWaku Japan. It'd been deleted via AfD since it was essentially a WP:TVGUIDE type of setup. None of the films were created by the channel, nor was the channel the first place to show these films, so it was basically a case of a film eventually showing on a channel.
Now a look at the article page showed an extremely long list of various shows that have played on the channel. My question is basically this: do we really need to list every show that has ever broadcast on the channel itself? My basic reaction is that we should really only list shows that the channel either created or was the first to premiere, meaning that the programming was created with the specific intent to show it on WakuWaku Japan first and rebroadcast it on other channels later. You can see the original version here. I've removed this as the content wasn't original to the channel or acquired by the channel, just re-broadcast content. I think that listing the shows can be problematic, given that some shows are only comprised of a limited amount of episodes, like Amachan or Tokyo Love Story. Basically, this runs the risk of the article being forever incomplete (if we include everything that was ever shown) or out of date, if they frequently switch up programming. I think that it'd be far easier to just limit the listing to original programming and then have a brief synopsis of other things they show, like what I've written.
I'm mildly curious to know if the channel is even notable or not, to be honest. A search brings up some sourcing like this, but there's not a terribly large amount of it out there. That's not my main reason for posting here, but since I'm here it is something that could be worth mentioning. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Article setup. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks to those who commented on the Sofia the First issue above. There's a similar situation at Talk:List of the Backyardigans episodes, where some editors appear to be contemplating the use of Nickelodeon URLs, as well as the assertion of someone who claims to be a show director as evidence of the show's production order. Comments solicited please! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If you've been using cite episode, or have looked at a references section, you might notice that many references using {{
cite episode}} are displaying an error message that reads "Check |episodelink= value (help)", that wasn't there yesterday. This is most likely because of recent changes to
Module talk:Citation/CS1, which is the backbone of {{
cite episode}}. There is most likely no error in the reference. The message is appearing because "#" is used in the citation, in the form #ep2
, List of Foo episodes #ep2
or something similar. This is how {{
cite episode}} is supposed to work, but the changes made to the template now call this an error, when it isn't. I've raised this at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 and submitted a request to fix the module, but there has been no action yet. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
A summary of a Featured Article tagged by this wikiproject will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 04:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
London Spy could use some eyeballs. There's a bit of a personality conflict between two editors and it's devolved into a lot of sniping that might be helped by some good-ol community meddling. Currently there is a dispute about how long plot summaries should be. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I am nominating two images for discussion because I could not choose which one to keep. I invite you to FFD. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! It seems that former TV channels like Noggin ( Playhouse Disney, Toon Disney, and several other sister networks that have been renamed) have their own pages, so I think that Noggin is notable enough for its own page, especially since it is linked from many of pages. The channel, originally being a co-production between Sesame Workshop and Nickelodeon directed at pre-teens, was so different than what the current Nick Jr. network is that I think it was more than a simple renaming. I would have done the page myself but I feel that having the community's input first will help. Let me know what you think, thank you! Squiddaddy ( talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see this bot approval request: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot24. To summarize, the operator wishes to modify some instances of Mexican TV station callsigns in articles, from (e.g.) XHFEC-TV to XHFEC-TDT, as part of a digital transition. As this is out of my area of expertise, I am asking for clarification that this is correct and desired. Thanks. — Earwig talk 06:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Editors here might like to keep an eye on this article, where an IP editor continues to use IMDb as a source, despite being told on their talk page that it is not, generally speaking, considered to be a WP:reliable source. The editor is edit-warring to keep the edits in, and is apparently a SPA, as they have not edited any other articles. I'm backing away. BMK ( talk) 02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This image is one of FFDs. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Can I get some opinion on if TVmaze is a reliable source regarding episode titles, air dates, cast, etc.? I see it popping up as reference, there is no TVmaze wikipedia article, and I didn't understand where their information comes from, is it user-generated, like IMDb? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
TVmaze is a collaborative site, which can be edited by any registered user.". Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Early criticism content. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The issue concerns including criticism in a section that is currently full of positive reviews, and especially the issue of including criticism of season 2 and noting how the show progressed from there. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that articles from Category:Top Model series have been extensively edited by Michh1 ( talk · contribs · count) and Moo1991 ( talk · contribs · count). And they have edited articles related to this series only. I have dropped a note on their talk pages in relation to this, to declare their COI in these cases. I personally have no interest in the series and would not be able to pursue this if its going to get bitter ahead. Hence requesting other regular editors to look into this matter. @ TheRedPenOfDoom:, if you are interested and willing, do keep an eye on this. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:ABC Persons of the Week, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
So a while back, i never knew about this Millennium TV-mini series. And originally, i thought it was a completely different production then the original Swedish films. However, now that i'm digging a little deeper, i realize that the "miniseries" is a compilation of the three films with extended scenes. In the US, its not even considered a separate entity. That means that most of its success is due to the original films. The miniseries was released on DVD/Blu-ray as the "Dragon Tattoo Trilogy".
I'm still working on the article just in case i find out more that makes this piece of work. But, i'm having a difficult time find out about the subject as a "miniseries" and more of a compilation. it might be more beneficial to repurpose the article into a Millenium (film series) instead. This is a very big change but it ultimately might end up making a better article. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I wonder what are criteria for TV season series? There are seasonal articles for some programs, for example The Voice UK (series 1), while others, such as The Face (TV series), doesn't. -- Horus ( talk) 14:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion was originally brought up here by Spshu, but I decided to refer it to WikiProject Television because I felt that we need to hash it out in a larger forum.
Personally, despite reliable sources being provided, I do not think we should refer to The Disney Afternoon as the Disney-Kellogg Alliance in the article because I don't think the name is notable enough to supplant the more well-known name in the article. I want to see what all of you at WikiProject Television have to say about this whole matter. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This thread is long past its usefulness. The issue was settled outside of WikiProject Television, and it seems like this discussion is going nowhere. Can we close it now? Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 07:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Going through my watchlist, I noticed someone recently added an award nomination from what looks some random blogger, cartermatt.com. I removed it, but a linksearch indicates that there are quite a few more of these citations. Before I unilaterally remove all of them, I figured I'd ask how the WikiProject feels about this – are these awards something we should be reporting? I located a draft article about the site, and that doesn't really instill me with any more confidence. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have suggested that WP:WikiProject NCIS be converted into a taskforce of this project, WPTV, similar to how other inactive TV wikiprojects have been converted to WPTV taskforces over the years. For the proposal discussion, see WT:WikiProject NCIS -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
With increasing importance of the internet it has recently become common that TV show episodes have been made publicly and legally available online by the networks themselves not only after they aired on TV but also before. Sometimes for whole seasons at a time, e.g., Aquarius, Satisfaction, sometimes just for some episodes, e.g., Public Morals, Telenovela, Superstore, and sometimes including the pilot, e.g., Moonbeam City, The Expanse. Note that my question is not about teasers, trailers, leaked material, limited audiences / conventions, or press only access, but full episodes that are identical with the ones that air on traditional TV at a later time and available to everyone who also has access to the episodes on TV later.
I find no explicit mention how to deal with this in the MOS. I see that (even the above listed) articles deal with these facts differently. I find an implicit distinction in the wording of "released" (online) vs. "aired" (on TV), but I find that these distinctions are not made consistently or at least not in a way that can reflect the mixed releases (online and over the air) as described above. Points of conflict are
I see three possible consistent approaches in general:
– Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyone have thoughts about how to treat the title in the lead at Wabbit (TV series)? It looks to me like someone took the logo a little too literally, and instead of considering the series' title to be "Wabbit.", they've inflated it to "Wabbit. - A Looney Tunes Prod." Reminds me of a weird debate AussieLegend had with someone who interpreted "Songs from and inspired by the television series" as part of a TV soundtrack album's title. Thoughts? Also, there's a discussion about whether or not the alternate European title of "Bugs." is widespread enough to be included in the lead. My concern is that there might be multiple country-specific titles, and we shouldn't encourage the addition of all of these. Since I might be being stubborn here, some other input would be appreciated. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm planning to nominate List of Kalyeserye episodes for deletion, but before I do, I thought I'd float it past you all in case there was something I was missing, or if anyone had any thoughts for how it could be saved. As short as possible: Kalyeserye is a daily, live, semi-serialized, improvisational comedy segment that airs during Eat Bulaga!, a daily, live, variety show in the Philippines. Here's what it looks like. While it's very popular and presumably notable, my concern is that since we're talking about a live segment within a live show, a list of episodes seems like an academically fruitless endeavor, since no real "story" is being told, and more importantly, the article will never meet WP:V. How does one verify any of the "episodes"? Is anyone ever going to release DVDs of this live, improvised segment? It would be like trying to catalog the daily banter between Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford on The Today Show. (Which I said verbatim in the AfD for this related article). If you read some of the episode summaries, I think you'll see what I mean. There's no real story happening, it's mostly banter with some story-like beats interspersed. Also, I appear to be the only one participating in discussion at Talk:List of Kalyeserye episodes. Community input would be greatly appreciated. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Additional opinions welcome at Template talk:Netflix#River. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the articles on ABC Family and Freeform (TV network) need some attention. It looks like a cut-and-paste move was done.
Also, Category:ABC Family shows was moved to Category:Freeform shows which I don't understand either. Are even old shows that have been produced by ABC Family now automatically Freeform shows? Shouldn't there be a new category for Freeform shows, leaving the ABC Family as it is? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And this applies to Category:ABC Family and Category:Freeform, too. There is also Category:ABC Family original films.– Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Would there be any opposition to organizing a list? The show seems notable enough to arrange one. Usually each episode has a page on the site which could be used as a reference to support its title and air date. Due to there being over a thousand episode it would not seem appropriate to allow summaries on a master list and to save that for if season pages were made.
Are any notability criteria needed to allow for a Dr. Phil (season 1) to Dr. Phil (season 14) to be made? I'm personally only interested in doing a master list but I imagine some people might want to add summaries so if they begin to do so it would be nice to have a season page to divert them to. 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Under Category:Television seasons we have Category:Television seasons by year on the basis of when they happened.
We also have Category:Television seasons by programming which collects the seasons of multiple series.
I would like to know if we could also collect seasons on the basis of their counting. As in a category for all articles about a first season, another for all second seasons, and so forth.
For example Lost (season 1) and WordGirl (season 1) and Total Divas (season 1)
The only thing I am not sure about is the formatting of the naming.
Before creating I figured I would throw out some ideas to see if anyone had better ones. It would be a big project but it wouldn't have to be done all at once. There are a lot of pages like these and this would be a good way to track them. Naturally the population of each category would shrink as we went forward.
Category:List of television seasons by number perhaps?
As for how to populate it...
and so forth.
Once we got to season 10+ the category would display out of order, a problem the 'by year' has not had to deal with since it ranges from 1950 to 2016, so it would only approach a problem on the year 9999.
One prevention might be to make it double digit from the start:
but that might not be easy for people to remember... I don't know any shows approaching 100 seasons so it seems to fix the problem at least.
It occured to me we could spell it out rather than use the numerical characters:
we can see that breaks down even sooner in terms of automated parent category order though. I guess we could simply comment |01 and |02 and so forth when adding them to do that though. It seems like using number characters would take up less space though. 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
At the above there are claims that it is a British American co-production using cites that may be right or wrong and on the list of episodes since the new template allows multi countries and dates British and American date formats are being used setting what I believe is a precedent. As a non interventionist editor who does not get into edit wars, I think some guidance is needed from the experienced editor here. Over to you REVUpminster ( talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I took out the Canadian dates and I was shot down on the Talk:List of Sherlock episodes re date consistency and life is too short. REVUpminster ( talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Would template:cite AV media be appropriate for this? Or perhaps template:cite AV media notes? I have just been using template:cite web til now. Would an online log-in TV guide be considered a template:cite encyclopedia? I am told there is some kind of registration=yes field to make use of. Bell Fibe TV has a basic TV guide anyone can view without logging in, but if you have an account and log in you can view a more extensive guide that goes more days into the future and also lists original air dates for programs, like when I view the guide for the TV itself.
Brought this up at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Template to use for TV guides and some repliers advised to ask here too.
Unfortunately it is just a basic page for the guide, I don't know how to produce any unique URLs to link to content, I can provide an access-date in good faith to show when I viewed it. I can't archive it due to the registration barrier. Unfortunately this means that once an episode airs, it would have to rerun and someone would have to find the rerun to verify the Original air date data I provide from it.
I have been told that taking a photograph of my TV showing the OAD or a PrtScn of the logged-in website guide is copyvio but since I am merely citing a date I don't see how, it seems like fair use to include brief snippets of something in the 'quote' field from a source for verifying basic data like air dates and titles. Would there be a way to qualify them for fair use if I cropped it to be a small-as-possible portion which was only large enough to show the title and OAD but small enough that it crops off a portion of the summary? 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 20:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Would someone from WP:TV mind taking a look at Siya Ke Ram and possibly assessing it? I'm not sure if including information about "dubbed" versions, etc. is something commonly included per MOS:TV and also not sure about the "Former cast" section. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (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 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
Hey guys. I've been working for a few years now on articles for the TV series Millennium, and I've gotten round to doing some work on the cast and crew. The problem is that they're almost all people who haven't really been thrown into the spotlight enough to have a lot of reliably sourced information about them out there ( Lance Henriksen and Terry O'Quinn being the main exceptions). So I'm not really requesting anything active, but if anyone working on other material happens to notice any of these names popping up in a source, I'd really appreciate a ping about it so I can make use of it (and if anyone is interested in any of these names for their work on anything else, I'd be glad to split a collaboration). I'm mainly hoping to turn up some more on Megan Gallagher first and foremost since the article now is probably a few hundred words from a half-decent GA, but anything else anyone spots would be awesome. Again, just if you recognise a name from sourcing anything else of your own, let me know, but don't be going out of your way looking since I'm already doing that. Cheers! GRAPPLE X 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The WP:RfC is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone help WP:TNT this? Right now most of its content is WP:Fancruft. sst flyer 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This category of American animated television series has a lot of articles in it also tagged with subcategories of that category, e.g. Category:1990s American animated television series. This would make that a non-diffusing subcategory, but nationality is not merely a "special characteristic of interest" as the guideline has it, so I've started removing the category from articles, but now I'm doubting myself. Is a rollback in order? 23W 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello I wonder if you can create this: List of international telenovelas broadcast by Venevision. I know that there List of programs broadcast by Venevisión. But what I'm trying to say is that I would like to create a list for decades telenovela non-Venevision, but were transmitted on that channel. Something like this List of telenovelas of Televisa in 2010s. Maybe it's wrong, but is not, ask why. If I say it's not possible, I'll understand :).-- Philip J Fry (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Comicbookmovie.com. A WP:Permalink for it is here. This source has affected a lot of articles, and this discussion is important. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm looking for references to cite for the Nominations at the 10th TCA Awards.
I can already find plenty of sources that only just cite the Winners, but I want a cite for the Nominees.
Specifically because I'm drafting up a Featured List drive for Bill Nye the Science Guy, and I want to find a WP:RS source that indeed confirms the television show was nominated for the 10th TCA Awards.
Please ping or message me on my user talk page if you find anything.
Any help would be appreciated,
— Cirt ( talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emily Kinney#Did Kinney leave the show in 2014 or 2015?. There is a dispute about when Kinney officially left The Walking Dead, with two editors stating that her official leave from the show should be noted as 2015 instead of 2014 because "she appeared in a hallucination, and after that she has appeared in a flashback using archive footage." They state that because she was listed in the title sequence in 5x09, and because "[w]e do go by the airing date, not the filming date. [...] [I]t is standard practice to go by the airing dates." Another editor and I have brought up the issue of what WP:Reliable sources state on the matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
"Her character played a huge role in the show overall." HUH? Do you even watch this show? She spent most of her time in her first two seasons standing around in the background doing nothing! "So of course sources refer to her as a main star." So now you have a superhuman superpower to know what everything on the internet secretly means? What it actually says means nothing because you (and only you) know the secret meaning?"
ChamithN, our main point is supported by various WP:Reliable sources. And that main point is what I stated above: "The WP:Reliable secondary sources, at this point in time, only cite 2014/the 'Coda' episode as Kinney's departure from the series; this is the case whether we state 'departure,' 'exit' or 'left,' which are obviously all synonyms in this regard. They do not list any of these additional appearances as the point she departed the series or as her final episode. This is a matter of interpreting a WP:Primary source via the credits vs. what WP:Secondary sources state. This is clear by various WP:Reliable sources on this matter. As seen by the " Emily Kinney departed The Walking Dead" Google search and by the " Emily Kinney left the series" Google search, sources only cite 2014/the "Coda" episode as her departure from the series, even recently. So, yes, I do not think we should be stating that Kinney was a main cast member/series regular for any of these later episodes, or that she departed the series in any of these later episodes, when no WP:Reliable secondary sources support that. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, 'reporter' or not. None of these sources [, [which range from late 2014 to just about any point in 2015,] have been proven wrong on this matter. They cannot be proven wrong by an interpretation of a primary source. We cannot use primary sources to contradict secondary sources. The WP:Primary sources/WP:Secondary sources policy is clear about that."
So when it comes to edits like this and this one by Cebr1979, he could simply be reverted and a WP:Reliable source could be added to the content he removed. To do so now, however, would result in a WP:Edit war because he is a serious WP:Edit warrior. This is why I will likely be settling this matter with a well-formatted WP:RfC, and I will not let him bog it down if I do. You and I should refrain from responding to him if I start such a discussion; otherwise, it will end up like the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Three editors and I have been discussing at Talk:Scream Queens (2015 TV series)#Cast and characters quotations. I don't agree with LLarrow's approach, and I ask for this Wikiproject's opinions of if the quotations should be removed or not. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was reopened. I want it to be closed, already. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
We are having a discussion at Talk:The Duke of Edinburgh Awards about whether being a popular TV show means that every episode should receive an article -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a popular enough programme to have an article for each episode. Each episode must show notability of its own, as WP:NOTINHERITED. The article is essentially a plot only summary of a television episode and fails to establish notability so I've nominated it for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Duke of Edinburgh Awards. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
For some time now, an IP editor has been working on List of Rugrats episodes. At first these edits appeared to have been good faith, but many dubious edits have been identified. However, some of the dubious edits are supported by contradictory reliable sources. For example, this edit changed dates for two episodes with Zap2Itsaying the first episode aired in 2002, while TVGuide says the second episode aired in 2004. The problem here is that the two episodes in question aired one after another and it seems impossible that the first episode aired in 2002 with the station pressing paused for 2 years before airing the second episode. The Zap2It source seems more credible given the timing of other episodes, but for other episodes (especially the earlier seasons) TVGuide is more credible. The copyright notice at the end of the episode pair also supports the Zap2It source for the episodes that I've used as an example. Rugrats episodes were, as far as I can remember, and based on the copies I have here, aired in the same pairs and each episode included its title, so it's not possible to mix them up. I've tried to find a reliable, and consistent source for this series' episodes but haven't had much success. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I just got through reverting 190.172.168.114 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character at various The Walking Dead character articles. An example is here. I reverted the IP for the same reason that I reverted an IP with regard to List of Teen Wolf characters: We do not treat characters as though they are permanently alive or dead with a "status" field; the reason why is pretty much due to what MOS:PLOT states: By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE). At any particular point in the story there is a "past" and a "future", but whether something is "past" or "future" changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous "present".
This IP has found a way to get around Template:Infobox character not including such a field. So what should be done about this? Does anyone other than the IP agree with adding the field? I don't know if this field is used at any other character articles for shows or otherwise, and if the IP got the field from one of those cases, but, in my opinion, it should be removed in all cases. I'll leave a note at Template talk:Infobox character, Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series), and IP 190.172.168.114's talk page, about this matter, redirecting them to this section for discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There are currently two discussions underway regarding MOS:IDENTITY at the village pump. One of these is relevant to the TV project. It addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. For example, if a person changes their sexuality and name, should this be reflected in an article about a TV series that ended 32 years ago? The discussion may be found here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 03:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.
The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.
Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
There is some very concerning content at The View (U.S. TV series) in the " Notable episodes" section; in particular, the two subsections titled "Doctor's stethoscope controversy" and "Refusal to hire people with black names". I have not edited the article, nor do I plan to. Putting aside the misleading headings, these subsections send up all kinds of warning flags, especially with regard to violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. This show has been on the air for nearly 20 years and there have been an endless amount of controversial incidents and statements by various co-hosts, like these, that received wide media coverage for a few days, then disappeared for good.
It should be noted that the editor who added all the "black names" content first put it in Raven-Symoné, then, over the past few days, added all of it into The View via dozens of edits. So now, all of the content is in both articles.
Since these controversy incidents were just a few of literally dozens of similar random incidents over the years, I don't even know if any of the content from the two subsections should be included, let alone in such massive detail. In any case, I have no idea where to even begin with this, so I hope that some interested and experienced editors with TV show articles could review the entire "Notable episodes" section and make necessary edits to eliminate the over-the-top tabloid feel and turn it back into an encylopedia article.
Czoal ( talk) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(moved from "Need your opinion on something..." on from my talk page to here for better forum) Geraldo Perez ( talk) 13:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Geraldo, can you share your opinion on this this reversion at The 100 (TV series)? The use of 'Series overview' sections with just a link the the "Episodes list" page and the 'series overview' table is extremely common at TV series articles (including, I'll note for example, at Girl Meets World), so I'm trying to determine if there's any policy basis for AlexTheWhovian's revision or not. Pinging AussieLegend on this as well, for another opinion... Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The general guideline is we don't create sections that only house a link to a page (those are "See Also" sections) and we don't create multiple sections of the same topic. Not unless they are subsections of a main topic (e.g., Production --> Sub: Writing, Filming, etc.). In this case, what is being reverted is the unnecessary creation of a section that basically summarizes the episode information. You have a premise section that contains prose, and then an "overview" was created for the dates and numbers of episodes. They are both the same thing and should be housed together. It's about efficient, professional organization of articles. I get that a lot of pages do this, but they should be cleaned up to be more reflective of how to organize an article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 12:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
the fundamental concept that drives the plot of a film or other story. The series overview is more closely a summary of the broadcast history of the plot, not a record of the premise. If the table belongs anywhere, it should be in the "broadcast" section of an article. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I want to thank Geraldo Perez and AussieLegend for their comments here – what they say has been my understanding of the situation. I absolutely agree that there is no "Guideline basis" for the proposition that we need to remove the 'Series overview' or 'Episodes' sections from TV series articles. More to the point, use of these kinds of sections has been a long-standing practice at TV series articles, and the use of these sections shouldn't be "thrown away" like this before a widespread discussion (possibly even an RfC) is held to achieve consensus on the issue first. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
If a separate episodes section is needed so badly, why not have it like Haven, Once Upon a Time and Castle? That is, where the section not only contains the link to the LoE page and the transcluded Series Overview table, but prose (as we're requesting) in the form of premiere and season renewals? Alex| The| Whovian 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
So are the proponents of removing 'Episodes' sections at TV articles / adding text to them also proposing doing the same to 'series overview' and 'episodes' sections at List of episodes / season pages? Just wondering because this conversation seems pretty arbitrary/inconsistent to me (not that I'm suggesting breaking up any of these sections). What problem are we trying to solve here? -- Wikipedical ( talk) 01:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.
This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.
The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
According to the MOS, "new cast members [are] added to the end of the list". But then, characters that enter a series earlier would be higher up in the character list, no matter how soon they leave the series. Thus, it is common practice to order (in particular) the recurring characters by number of episodes they appear in (to match IMDb style).
For currently airing seasons, according to the MOS, new characters start at the end of the list but then are diligently sorted up after every new episode (which is missing in the MOS), e.g., Empire (season 2), Scream Queens (2015 TV series).
At least for recurring cast, this IMDb sorting is used in a very large number of pages of past shows, too (all seasons of the following shows: American Horror Story, 24, Pretty Little Liars, Louie, The Good Wife, Community, The Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, Mad Men, Angel, Justified, Bones, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Alias, Damages, One Tree Hill, and there are many more).
This should probably be reflected in the MOS, too? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, I've noticed a minor trend in some TV articles, and this seems the most appropriate place to get some consensus happening. Across numerous articles, I see the use of blue to indicate low ratings numbers, and the use of red to indicate high ratings numbers. This seems the exact opposite of what it should be (assuming it should be at all). Red connotes danger, a warning, so in TV, red seems the proper indication for "uh oh, this show's doing poorly." Any thoughts? Anyone care? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Correction Hey everybody--My communication was faulty: They're not using the color to indicate "hey, this is a great rating" or "hey, this is a bad rating", which would obviously be WP:OR. They're using colors to indicate the highest and lowest numbers in a range. 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 9. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, Kalyeserye is a strange case. Quick background: there is a long-running show in the Philippines called Eat Bulaga!, some sort of daily daytime variety show. Within that show, is a segment called "Kalyeserye" a somewhat serialized show-within-a-show that has recurring characters, and seems to center on a love story between a "love couple" Alden and Yaya Dub. Now here's where it gets weird: It's mostly improvised, as far as I can tell although there seems to be some semblance of a story, which they do in a kind of soap opera parody style. Some of the characters seem to not actually speak, rather, they pantomime to other actors' voices and sound effects and communicate with one another over a video chat app. I really am having a hard time explaining it, because it doesn't make any frickin' sense! Here's a video (official GMA network site) to give you an idea. At 2:19, one of the Lolas (grandmothers) has a dramatic telephone call over dramatic music (perhaps speaking to the show's Mysterious Caller?). There is also interaction between some of the characters and the show hosts. Blah blah blah.
Anyhow, this weirdness apparently makes it very difficult for editors to write episode summaries, for instance this one, which introduces a lot of facts from the episode, but leaves you wondering what the hell the story is. And if we don't really understand what the story is, how does anyone write effective episode summaries? Some of the earlier ones at List of Kalyeserye episodes come close, but then some of the more recent ones really go off the rails. It seems that the tendency is to just point out things that happened, rather than to deliver a cohesive explanation of plot, if there is one. Also, the main Kalyeserye article doesn't do a fantastic job of explaining what the series is. Anyone have any thoughts about how to improve these articles? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, I'll mention that the show is live, so I imagine WP:V factors in here. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Any help would be appreciated. :)
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27#US_miniseries_decade_templates.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I considered posting this message on the assessment page, but figured this talk page was on more watchlists. I have worked on Eaten Alive (TV special) some, but not enough to feel comfortable with the content. The individual who expanded the article to its current state does not seem interested in nominating it for Good status, but I think it may meet criteria. If there is a project member who enjoys promoting article to GA status, this may be an easy project to take on. Thanks for your consideration, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 06:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It would be great to have input from this project's editors on the naming conventions for the upcoming "event series" of The X-Files, which is being called "Season 10", "revival", "reboot", "event", "miniseries".... Please chime in, thanks: Talk:The X-Files (2016 miniseries)#Season 10?. Jmj713 ( talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have found there is not a consistent way to notate season and episode for television series. Sometimes they are written as 1X19; 01x19; season 01, episode 19; or season 1, episode 19. Which is preferable? (I lean towards the last one. This was previously discussed at Manual of Style/Dates and numbers) LA ( T) @ 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and giving readers some extra help, I generally write something like
season four episode "Murder in The Air". When referring to a series of episodes in a season, I use "season 4, episodes 1, 2, 4, 5, 17–23" or something like that (spelling out the numbers in such a case is messy at best). -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the geeky formats is they are not used consistently, on or off WP, and they are meaningless to people not already familiar with them. If for some reason we were to settle on one of them, s2e13 is much clearer than the alternatives. Also, the "x" in the examples given above is actually × and should be rendered thus, per MOS:NUM. There's no need to use a leading zero (that is mostly done with TV-pirating torrents, for alphanumeric sorting reasons, and torrent sites mostly use s02e03 format, anyway, not "02x13"). If we actually came to a consensus to use ×-format in a table, it should be "The BFG-9000" (2×13), "Return of the BFG-9000" (10×3), but the s2e13 format really is easier to understand. If for some reason we want a leading zero (I argue against it), that would only be done for the short numeric form: s02e13 or maybe 02×13, not for plain English: season 02, episode 04 or abbreviations thereof; we don't use leading zeroes for any other such constructions (e.g. dates, measurements, book volume numbers, etc.), also per MOS:NUM. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we only include TV shows that have begun production in "List of programs broadcast by X"-type articles? TV networks perpetually have thousands of shows in development, and only choose around a few to go into production. I cut a few shows from Nickelodeon's programs article since no further word about them was made since they were initially announced.
So, to re-iterate my question, should we only include shows that have begun production in these kinds of articles? Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 13:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I recently modified {{ Infobox television}} and {{ Infobox television season}} to comply with WP:IMGSIZE, which states that image sizes should not be forced without good reason. This change should not have been noticeable, but it does make image formatting easier. In the old days it was necessary to fully format the infobox image: e.g. | image = [[File:image name.jpg|250px|caption text|alt=alt text for image]]. Implementation of Module:InfoboxImage some time ago supported the old format but added some parameters so that it was only necessary to include unformatted information:
| image = image name.jpg | image_size = 250 | image_alt = alt text for image | caption = caption text
The latest changes support both formats but now also allows for automatic image sizing based on user preferences. Most TV articles that I checked used 250px as the default image size, so this is reflected in the infobox changes meaning that, since captions are not normally necessary, only the following needs to be entered:
| image = image name.jpg | image_alt = alt text for image
In the event that a size other than 250px needs to be specified, the image_upright
parameter my be used to specify the image size:
| image = image name.jpg | image_upright = 1.22 | image_alt = alt text for image
The value required for image_upright
is easily calculated by dividing the desired image size by 220. For a 270px image, image_upright
= 270 / 220 = 1.23. A convenient table has been included in the template documentation. Please note that the previous methods of formatting are still supported. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
07:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
On any page of an "episodes' list", to prevent the disorder I found a system: in place of "width:%" insert this method (<'br />) on a determined space of a title or writers of that episode. Example on the animated series Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!:
Luigi1090( talk) 11:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Category:Episode count templates contains a number of templates that consist of "onlyinclude" tags and a raw episode count, and occasionally a date. All of these templates have been nominated for deletion. The discussions for each may be found at the following locations:
-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
All of the templates in the category have now been nominated so I have completely updated the above post. Most of the discussions are on the same page. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
All of the above discussions have now closed as delete, with the exception of the discussions for {{ South Park episode count}} and {{ The Simpsons episode count}}, which have closed as "No consensus". However, even these templates are no longer in use. It seems to me that we should be discouraging use of these templates, as they are unnecessary. If it is necessary to transclude episode counts there is a simpler way than creating templates specifically for the purpose. Simply wrapping the episode count in <includeonly> and </includeonly> so that you see something like "| num_episodes = <includeonly>140</includeonly>" allows the episode count to be transcluded anywhere. At the article where the count is to be transcluded, it is done the same way that we do when transcluding episode lists. Instead of adding "{{Futurama episode count}}" to an article, you add "{{:Futurama}}", which is a lot simpler. This is the process now being used at many episode lists. See, for example, this edit and this one, in which AlexTheWhovian added the feature to Scorpion and List of Scorpion episodes. This is far easier than creating {{ Scorpion episode count}} and having to update it constantly, since we already update the main series articles. Opinions? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Got the message on my talk page, not sure what I can contribute to the discussion. I implemented the "includeonly" tags on multiple series' pages after finding another where it had been done, and had only one user have an issue with it before I explained it and the accepted it. Also not sure how we can implement it within the infobox template... Adding the tags will affect the transclusion of the template itself. (Noted, I'm also guilty of creating {{ DW episode count}}, where this transcludes to two instances on Doctor Who and two instances on List of Doctor Who serials, so it only needs updating once and not in four locations.) Alex| The| Whovian 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Dino Dan is in need of assistance. A copy-edit has been done but it still needs an infobox and logo. 108.20.47.212 ( talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a move discussion going on at Talk:Bag of Bones (film) which needs more participants to build consensus. The underlying question is whether a miniseries can have only two installments, or whether the minimum number of segments is three; and, if consensus is that three is the minimum, what to call two-part television events that are longer than a movie but shorter than a miniseries. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to the conversation there. — GrammarFascist contribs talk 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone here watch Bad Girls Club? Back on 8 November I made several corrections to the article only to find yesterday that all of the fixes had been reverted, predominantly by one anonymous editor who seems to be asserting ownership over the article and doesn't use edit summaries or respond to posts on his talk page. Virtually every edit since 8 September by an IP or newly registered editor has been vandalism or the addition of unsourced content. The vandalism is easily fixed but I have no idea what in the article is correct as none of it is sourced and it really needs somebody familiar with the series to have a look. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been watching List of The Big Bang Theory characters for a long time and have been frustrated by the amount of fancruft creeping into this article. A good example is the section titled "Appearing in one scene only", which I removed earlier. [3] However, as has happened more than once in the article's history, the removed content has mostly been restored, this time to a section titled " Appearing in one episode only". [4] The justification for this restoration is "Joyce Kim was mentioned in several episodes besides the one scene in which she appeared", "minor characters who are relatives of the main characters (Amy's mother, and Raj's cousin) should also be listed" and "Analeigh Tipton, should also be listed given that Tipton appeared on the show in a different capacity". [5] The entire article, some 17,200 words, is supported by 64 citations using {{ cite episode}} and two from tv.com, leaving only 9 that are non-primary, reliable sources. This article could really do with some extra eyes and editors as I'm having a hell of job trying to keep the article under control. We really shouldn't have such crufty articles for any serhies, let alone one as popular as this. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 03:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I object to the massive removal of content that was done in 7 edits a few days ago.
I would say that all characters that have more than a casual interaction with the story should be included. Examples of characters that should not be included are: a clerk at the DMV, a mall security guard, the minister who married Leonard and Penny. Basically their interactions with the story was just casual. -- Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 17:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Comments requested here re: the ordering of The Backyardigans episodes and, as a lesser matter, MOS:CT. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for celebrity bio articles to contain detailed week-by-week analysis of a current reality show that they're appearing on? I cut some from a biography article recently, as it seemed clearly undue emphasis and failed the WP:10YEARS rule of thumb, but an IP added it back saying it was "often standard for contestants on reality shows". Is it? (Or is that maybe just for reality show contestants who have no other career? The bio in question was an actress with decades of other TV work.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for someone to help with updates to the Colleen Bell article and I wonder if anyone on this project might be willing to help get things started. In addition to being the current U.S. ambassador to Hungary, Bell is also a television producer known for working on The Bold and the Beautiful. The Producing career section of the Colleen Bell article says she is producer of the show, followed by a few sentences about the show itself. Since the Wikipedia entry is about Colleen Bell, not the show, I think it best if this section focuses more on her work with the program. ( You can find the request here.) Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest: I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell through my firm, Beutler Ink, and SKD Knickerbocker, so I won't make any edits myself. Can someone look at my request and make the changes if they seem appropriate? Cheers, WWB Too ( Talk · COI) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Should there always be season articles whenever there is more then one season? For example, Younger (TV series) has aired 12 episodes, with only one section of out-of-universe information on reception, and yet there is a separate List of Younger episodes and also Younger (season 1) and Younger (season 2) articles. I see there is WP:WHENSPLIT, and MOS:TV says season articles may be necessary for 80+ episodes. – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
While this example (Younger) may be inappropriate for splitting (although I completed it, since it was half-accomplished), I do believe MOS:TV should be updated to reflect both television and Wikipedia today. That '80+ episode' designation was inserted in March 2009, when serialized stories, limited/anthology series, and shorter seasons weren't as widespread as today. Also, TV series rarely even make it to 80+ episodes- Breaking Bad was 62. Moreover, at that time season articles weren't as well-maintained as they are today- now we have users adding much more information on production and reception, and many season pages that have become featured lists. I believe we need to address these changes and rewrite that section about season pages and splitting LOEs. I lean towards something broader- not a rigid episode count but whether there is enough information to split. Shows like American Horror Story and Fargo are shows that have obvious needs for season pages once they were renewed, since their seasons are completely different, and the pages would have new information on casting, locations, and production. Incredibly popular shows like Empire too make sense to have season pages once renewed, since inevitably there will be a lot of well-maintained work, too detailed for a series page. Procedural broadcast shows with less information are the ones that I would be more reluctant to split. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 01:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
If we left "size" to editor discretion then pages would be split far earlier than they needed to for size reasons. It's happens quite frequently because someone "thinks" that it's too large when it fact it isn't large at all. That's why WP:SIZE actually has guidelines on when to split. The difficult nature is that it's based on readable prose, which is hard to determine without copying and pasting outside of the HTML code when dealing with tables. That's how the 80+ episodes was come up with, because that's roughly to the size that WP:SIZE dictates for splitting.
Yes, season articles are meant for more details. My point is that early is a show's life, those details are already on the main page and maybe another ancillary page. To create a season article after one or two seasons makes little sense when almost every ounce of detail for those seasons is likely on the main page. Depending on the show, there may not be a significant number of reviews for it (yes, some shows get tons of coverage...many do not). With regard to when in a show's life that a season page can or should be created, you have the GNG and you have a basic understanding that meeting the GNG by duplicating another page is not actually an appropriate reason to split. This is a reason why, if you're going to argue for details, you need a seasonal minimum established. Your main page needs to be large enough that trimming down the details to more summary level (so that the details can exist on a season page) makes sense. That doesn't make sense for any show after 1 season and rarely would I say that it make sense for a show after two seasons. Not unless that show has gotten a crazy amount of coverage and the main page is swamped with information overload. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
In August, Cebr1979 ( talk · contribs) began linking the season number in the episode infobox to the apropos article or section discussing that season. So far as I know, he only did this with Star Trek episodes. At the time, I was unfamiliar with this practice taking place anywhere, so I brought it up for discussion at the Star Trek WikiProject and at the infobox talk page itself. There was little-to-no discussion on the matter, with only Favre1fan93 ( talk · contribs) commenting that he felt such linking shouldn't be done. Cebr1979 took my inquiry as a vote against him or her linking, and so with two editors against such practice, declined to pursue it further.
Today, Cebr1979 has commented ( [6] [7]) that he or she intends to restart the practice of linking the season in the infobox. Despite Cebr1979's assumption, I don't have an opinion on this, but would like to get the community's wider input on the matter since it's something not done commonly (or at all) previously. Since I didn't have much luck in garnering input at the Star Trek WikiProject or the template talk page before, I'm bringing it up here hoping for the TV WikiProject's input on the matter. Thanks in advance! — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
For anyone wondering, this is the whole source for three conversations. Like, it's so minor I can't even believe it was ever even noticed... much less discussed! Cebr1979 ( talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
"The Adversary" | |
---|---|
Episode no. | Season
3 |
Hey all, could use some other eyes at Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes. There's a contingent of show fans who are insistent that an episode, "Minimus is Missing", which is coded by Disney as 223 is a S3 episode. I keep having the same circular discussion, so if anyone has anything different to add (since I very well could be being a little myopic about this), I welcome the input. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey all, anyone have any expertise in this? these edits introduced a few extra sister channels for Teletoon. Accurate? Or is someone playing around? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I recently had to re-delete an article that was essentially a list of every horror film broadcast on WakuWaku Japan. It'd been deleted via AfD since it was essentially a WP:TVGUIDE type of setup. None of the films were created by the channel, nor was the channel the first place to show these films, so it was basically a case of a film eventually showing on a channel.
Now a look at the article page showed an extremely long list of various shows that have played on the channel. My question is basically this: do we really need to list every show that has ever broadcast on the channel itself? My basic reaction is that we should really only list shows that the channel either created or was the first to premiere, meaning that the programming was created with the specific intent to show it on WakuWaku Japan first and rebroadcast it on other channels later. You can see the original version here. I've removed this as the content wasn't original to the channel or acquired by the channel, just re-broadcast content. I think that listing the shows can be problematic, given that some shows are only comprised of a limited amount of episodes, like Amachan or Tokyo Love Story. Basically, this runs the risk of the article being forever incomplete (if we include everything that was ever shown) or out of date, if they frequently switch up programming. I think that it'd be far easier to just limit the listing to original programming and then have a brief synopsis of other things they show, like what I've written.
I'm mildly curious to know if the channel is even notable or not, to be honest. A search brings up some sourcing like this, but there's not a terribly large amount of it out there. That's not my main reason for posting here, but since I'm here it is something that could be worth mentioning. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Article setup. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks to those who commented on the Sofia the First issue above. There's a similar situation at Talk:List of the Backyardigans episodes, where some editors appear to be contemplating the use of Nickelodeon URLs, as well as the assertion of someone who claims to be a show director as evidence of the show's production order. Comments solicited please! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If you've been using cite episode, or have looked at a references section, you might notice that many references using {{
cite episode}} are displaying an error message that reads "Check |episodelink= value (help)", that wasn't there yesterday. This is most likely because of recent changes to
Module talk:Citation/CS1, which is the backbone of {{
cite episode}}. There is most likely no error in the reference. The message is appearing because "#" is used in the citation, in the form #ep2
, List of Foo episodes #ep2
or something similar. This is how {{
cite episode}} is supposed to work, but the changes made to the template now call this an error, when it isn't. I've raised this at
Help talk:Citation Style 1 and submitted a request to fix the module, but there has been no action yet. --
AussieLegend (
✉)
17:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
A summary of a Featured Article tagged by this wikiproject will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? - Dank ( push to talk) 04:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
London Spy could use some eyeballs. There's a bit of a personality conflict between two editors and it's devolved into a lot of sniping that might be helped by some good-ol community meddling. Currently there is a dispute about how long plot summaries should be. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I am nominating two images for discussion because I could not choose which one to keep. I invite you to FFD. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello! It seems that former TV channels like Noggin ( Playhouse Disney, Toon Disney, and several other sister networks that have been renamed) have their own pages, so I think that Noggin is notable enough for its own page, especially since it is linked from many of pages. The channel, originally being a co-production between Sesame Workshop and Nickelodeon directed at pre-teens, was so different than what the current Nick Jr. network is that I think it was more than a simple renaming. I would have done the page myself but I feel that having the community's input first will help. Let me know what you think, thank you! Squiddaddy ( talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see this bot approval request: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot24. To summarize, the operator wishes to modify some instances of Mexican TV station callsigns in articles, from (e.g.) XHFEC-TV to XHFEC-TDT, as part of a digital transition. As this is out of my area of expertise, I am asking for clarification that this is correct and desired. Thanks. — Earwig talk 06:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Editors here might like to keep an eye on this article, where an IP editor continues to use IMDb as a source, despite being told on their talk page that it is not, generally speaking, considered to be a WP:reliable source. The editor is edit-warring to keep the edits in, and is apparently a SPA, as they have not edited any other articles. I'm backing away. BMK ( talk) 02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This image is one of FFDs. I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 23:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Can I get some opinion on if TVmaze is a reliable source regarding episode titles, air dates, cast, etc.? I see it popping up as reference, there is no TVmaze wikipedia article, and I didn't understand where their information comes from, is it user-generated, like IMDb? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
TVmaze is a collaborative site, which can be edited by any registered user.". Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Early criticism content. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The issue concerns including criticism in a section that is currently full of positive reviews, and especially the issue of including criticism of season 2 and noting how the show progressed from there. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that articles from Category:Top Model series have been extensively edited by Michh1 ( talk · contribs · count) and Moo1991 ( talk · contribs · count). And they have edited articles related to this series only. I have dropped a note on their talk pages in relation to this, to declare their COI in these cases. I personally have no interest in the series and would not be able to pursue this if its going to get bitter ahead. Hence requesting other regular editors to look into this matter. @ TheRedPenOfDoom:, if you are interested and willing, do keep an eye on this. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Category:ABC Persons of the Week, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
So a while back, i never knew about this Millennium TV-mini series. And originally, i thought it was a completely different production then the original Swedish films. However, now that i'm digging a little deeper, i realize that the "miniseries" is a compilation of the three films with extended scenes. In the US, its not even considered a separate entity. That means that most of its success is due to the original films. The miniseries was released on DVD/Blu-ray as the "Dragon Tattoo Trilogy".
I'm still working on the article just in case i find out more that makes this piece of work. But, i'm having a difficult time find out about the subject as a "miniseries" and more of a compilation. it might be more beneficial to repurpose the article into a Millenium (film series) instead. This is a very big change but it ultimately might end up making a better article. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I wonder what are criteria for TV season series? There are seasonal articles for some programs, for example The Voice UK (series 1), while others, such as The Face (TV series), doesn't. -- Horus ( talk) 14:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
This discussion was originally brought up here by Spshu, but I decided to refer it to WikiProject Television because I felt that we need to hash it out in a larger forum.
Personally, despite reliable sources being provided, I do not think we should refer to The Disney Afternoon as the Disney-Kellogg Alliance in the article because I don't think the name is notable enough to supplant the more well-known name in the article. I want to see what all of you at WikiProject Television have to say about this whole matter. Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This thread is long past its usefulness. The issue was settled outside of WikiProject Television, and it seems like this discussion is going nowhere. Can we close it now? Electric Burst( Electron firings)( Zaps) 07:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. Going through my watchlist, I noticed someone recently added an award nomination from what looks some random blogger, cartermatt.com. I removed it, but a linksearch indicates that there are quite a few more of these citations. Before I unilaterally remove all of them, I figured I'd ask how the WikiProject feels about this – are these awards something we should be reporting? I located a draft article about the site, and that doesn't really instill me with any more confidence. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have suggested that WP:WikiProject NCIS be converted into a taskforce of this project, WPTV, similar to how other inactive TV wikiprojects have been converted to WPTV taskforces over the years. For the proposal discussion, see WT:WikiProject NCIS -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
With increasing importance of the internet it has recently become common that TV show episodes have been made publicly and legally available online by the networks themselves not only after they aired on TV but also before. Sometimes for whole seasons at a time, e.g., Aquarius, Satisfaction, sometimes just for some episodes, e.g., Public Morals, Telenovela, Superstore, and sometimes including the pilot, e.g., Moonbeam City, The Expanse. Note that my question is not about teasers, trailers, leaked material, limited audiences / conventions, or press only access, but full episodes that are identical with the ones that air on traditional TV at a later time and available to everyone who also has access to the episodes on TV later.
I find no explicit mention how to deal with this in the MOS. I see that (even the above listed) articles deal with these facts differently. I find an implicit distinction in the wording of "released" (online) vs. "aired" (on TV), but I find that these distinctions are not made consistently or at least not in a way that can reflect the mixed releases (online and over the air) as described above. Points of conflict are
I see three possible consistent approaches in general:
– Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyone have thoughts about how to treat the title in the lead at Wabbit (TV series)? It looks to me like someone took the logo a little too literally, and instead of considering the series' title to be "Wabbit.", they've inflated it to "Wabbit. - A Looney Tunes Prod." Reminds me of a weird debate AussieLegend had with someone who interpreted "Songs from and inspired by the television series" as part of a TV soundtrack album's title. Thoughts? Also, there's a discussion about whether or not the alternate European title of "Bugs." is widespread enough to be included in the lead. My concern is that there might be multiple country-specific titles, and we shouldn't encourage the addition of all of these. Since I might be being stubborn here, some other input would be appreciated. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm planning to nominate List of Kalyeserye episodes for deletion, but before I do, I thought I'd float it past you all in case there was something I was missing, or if anyone had any thoughts for how it could be saved. As short as possible: Kalyeserye is a daily, live, semi-serialized, improvisational comedy segment that airs during Eat Bulaga!, a daily, live, variety show in the Philippines. Here's what it looks like. While it's very popular and presumably notable, my concern is that since we're talking about a live segment within a live show, a list of episodes seems like an academically fruitless endeavor, since no real "story" is being told, and more importantly, the article will never meet WP:V. How does one verify any of the "episodes"? Is anyone ever going to release DVDs of this live, improvised segment? It would be like trying to catalog the daily banter between Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford on The Today Show. (Which I said verbatim in the AfD for this related article). If you read some of the episode summaries, I think you'll see what I mean. There's no real story happening, it's mostly banter with some story-like beats interspersed. Also, I appear to be the only one participating in discussion at Talk:List of Kalyeserye episodes. Community input would be greatly appreciated. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Additional opinions welcome at Template talk:Netflix#River. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the articles on ABC Family and Freeform (TV network) need some attention. It looks like a cut-and-paste move was done.
Also, Category:ABC Family shows was moved to Category:Freeform shows which I don't understand either. Are even old shows that have been produced by ABC Family now automatically Freeform shows? Shouldn't there be a new category for Freeform shows, leaving the ABC Family as it is? – Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And this applies to Category:ABC Family and Category:Freeform, too. There is also Category:ABC Family original films.– Dark Cocoa Frosting ( talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Would there be any opposition to organizing a list? The show seems notable enough to arrange one. Usually each episode has a page on the site which could be used as a reference to support its title and air date. Due to there being over a thousand episode it would not seem appropriate to allow summaries on a master list and to save that for if season pages were made.
Are any notability criteria needed to allow for a Dr. Phil (season 1) to Dr. Phil (season 14) to be made? I'm personally only interested in doing a master list but I imagine some people might want to add summaries so if they begin to do so it would be nice to have a season page to divert them to. 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Under Category:Television seasons we have Category:Television seasons by year on the basis of when they happened.
We also have Category:Television seasons by programming which collects the seasons of multiple series.
I would like to know if we could also collect seasons on the basis of their counting. As in a category for all articles about a first season, another for all second seasons, and so forth.
For example Lost (season 1) and WordGirl (season 1) and Total Divas (season 1)
The only thing I am not sure about is the formatting of the naming.
Before creating I figured I would throw out some ideas to see if anyone had better ones. It would be a big project but it wouldn't have to be done all at once. There are a lot of pages like these and this would be a good way to track them. Naturally the population of each category would shrink as we went forward.
Category:List of television seasons by number perhaps?
As for how to populate it...
and so forth.
Once we got to season 10+ the category would display out of order, a problem the 'by year' has not had to deal with since it ranges from 1950 to 2016, so it would only approach a problem on the year 9999.
One prevention might be to make it double digit from the start:
but that might not be easy for people to remember... I don't know any shows approaching 100 seasons so it seems to fix the problem at least.
It occured to me we could spell it out rather than use the numerical characters:
we can see that breaks down even sooner in terms of automated parent category order though. I guess we could simply comment |01 and |02 and so forth when adding them to do that though. It seems like using number characters would take up less space though. 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
At the above there are claims that it is a British American co-production using cites that may be right or wrong and on the list of episodes since the new template allows multi countries and dates British and American date formats are being used setting what I believe is a precedent. As a non interventionist editor who does not get into edit wars, I think some guidance is needed from the experienced editor here. Over to you REVUpminster ( talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I took out the Canadian dates and I was shot down on the Talk:List of Sherlock episodes re date consistency and life is too short. REVUpminster ( talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Would template:cite AV media be appropriate for this? Or perhaps template:cite AV media notes? I have just been using template:cite web til now. Would an online log-in TV guide be considered a template:cite encyclopedia? I am told there is some kind of registration=yes field to make use of. Bell Fibe TV has a basic TV guide anyone can view without logging in, but if you have an account and log in you can view a more extensive guide that goes more days into the future and also lists original air dates for programs, like when I view the guide for the TV itself.
Brought this up at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Template to use for TV guides and some repliers advised to ask here too.
Unfortunately it is just a basic page for the guide, I don't know how to produce any unique URLs to link to content, I can provide an access-date in good faith to show when I viewed it. I can't archive it due to the registration barrier. Unfortunately this means that once an episode airs, it would have to rerun and someone would have to find the rerun to verify the Original air date data I provide from it.
I have been told that taking a photograph of my TV showing the OAD or a PrtScn of the logged-in website guide is copyvio but since I am merely citing a date I don't see how, it seems like fair use to include brief snippets of something in the 'quote' field from a source for verifying basic data like air dates and titles. Would there be a way to qualify them for fair use if I cropped it to be a small-as-possible portion which was only large enough to show the title and OAD but small enough that it crops off a portion of the summary? 174.92.135.167 ( talk) 20:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Would someone from WP:TV mind taking a look at Siya Ke Ram and possibly assessing it? I'm not sure if including information about "dubbed" versions, etc. is something commonly included per MOS:TV and also not sure about the "Former cast" section. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)