![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
i want to be a part of wikiproject television and biography but can't figure out. please advice. xo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to cleanup the infoboxes at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7) and related season articles but I've been getting some pushback from two editors there. I've reached three reverts for today so I'd appreciate some extra eyes on the articles. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I hate to say this again, but I would be very grateful if to many more eyes on Adventures of the Little Koala again. The unregistered user traced to North Carolina is slowly resuming to remove CBS and Cookie Jar without hard evidence from the page. If that person cannot come up with a good compromise, our only opinion is to have the page protected indefinitely. I already lost my interest on the show because of that ridiculous problem and just got back to it and I don't want to lose again. I feel so alone. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 10:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about a challenged split of List of Star Wars characters into multiple smaller articles based on individual Star Wars films and works, which involved the creation of eleven new articles. Currently, it is felt that the list is too long, especially after many past discussions to address this have gone unimplemented, and does not meet guidelines. However, it is also felt that the split structure is not effective and fails to improve. There is also a discussion about notability as it applies to character lists, whether all characters listed must meet a full threshold of notability expected for standalone articles or if there is a lesser threshold for inclusion on lists. Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Star Wars characters#This list doesn't meet the list selection criteria ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Friends, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone has added this distinction to numerous tv series articles in the awards section, for example Star Trek: Discovery. In my opinion this is not a notable award as it's essentially a blog writer's personal opinion as opposed to say the Emmys or Guild awards which are given out by notable organizations. I know that MOS:FILM has criteria for awards that say online only entities should not be included and though this project doesnt seem to have an awards section it should probably be compatible. Thoughts? Spanneraol ( talk) 16:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no. I don't have to deal with this. I came here to post a notification of a GAR on a popular TV show's article, saw another discussion related to our coverage of another TV show I enjoy, and decided to comment. But if the discussion is going to be about rehashing personal squabbles rather than improving the encyclopedia, then I don't want anything to do with it. Please ignore my above stricken comment. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Has this been discussed here before? The problem, if there is one, is the WikiProject Video games folk using (series) unless a (TV series) clashes. Opinions? In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
When disambiguation is required, use (TV series). -- Radiphus 15:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
At Christopher Kimball's Milk Street I tried to add episodes but cannot get the formatting right. Could someone please help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to merge Bulk and Skull, Adam Park and Tommy Oliver into Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Please join the discussion at Talk:Mighty Morphin Power Rangers!— A L T E R C A R I ✍ 16:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who does not know, IMDb has reorganised its character pages and consequently, {{ IMDb character}} no longer works. The character information has not been deleted entirely, there is now just a lot less and the pages are at a different url. See, for example, Mr Spock. The template has now been nominated for deletion. For those interested, the discussion is here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I know the current procedure is to remove references for airdates after an episode has aired. However, we have multiple vandals who like to mess with airdates (see, for example,
User:EvergreenFir/socks#Present and
User:EvergreenFir/socks#British). To help combat this type of vandalism, and in the spirit of
WP:V, I think we should have sources given for episode airdates. One of the easier ways to do this is to reference the Amazon or iTunes listings like I did at
Danny Phantom. I honestly don't know why we remove references. Just add a general reference to |airdateR=
and we'll be okay.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
06:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If airdates for a series are contentious, it may be beneficial to include either a reference for the "Airdate" column in the episode table, or general citations in the Reference section that verify airdates.(I'm particularly fond of the later approach, including links to The Futon Critic, Zap2It and TV Guide to source general episode data once the ref is removed after airing.) - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
|airdateR=
. Outside of that, we don't need it for series where there is not an issue. --
Alex
TW
17:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"...or is likely to be challenged..."You appear to live in a word of only currently-airing TV series articles, and don't seem to give any thought about what happens 10, 20, 30 years down the road when these shows are over and there are no editors around who can verify airdates from having watched them (which is quasi- WP:OR-y in any case). In short, any inline sourcing that supports any information on a TV series should not be removed. As per WP:V. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
it seems widespread only through animated series, and perhaps a few older series. I have agree that it should be included where the dates are likely to be challenged already, however. Don't forget that sourcing overkill is also a thing. -- Alex TW 18:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"...or is likely to be challenged..."It means exactly what it says. Likely to be challenged. Period. It doesn't say likely to be challenged already, it says likely to be challenged. So we don't have to wait for the first instance of date vandalism or what have you to occur. If a date change happens, to determine whether the change is correct or not, if we have column sources, we can quickly check the references without having to go searching for them because they were removed after said episode aired. What does it hurt to have column references there for past episodes? It doesn't hurt a single thing. In actuality, it hurts more to not have those references there. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I recommend that you understand the difference very soon.Or what? You're going to report us? Feel more than free, but good luck with getting any action taken. And just FYI, you're just making yourself look even worse by making threats like that. Not only that, but you're trying to control the discussion. If you think your tactics will work on me, then think again. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 20:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
|airdateR=
- my very first post in this was agreeing with Favre's suggestion, which is a more formal way of what I'm suggesting. And I said that if you have an issue with me, to take it to my talk page - WikiProject talk pages are for WikiProject matters, user talk pages are for matters about users. Actually, about that, why is this discussion here and not on the Manual of Style talk page? --
Alex
TW
22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)it is not necessary to include it for series where its not required, only series where there have been issues with dates.- Dates that seem uncontroversial now might be a problem in a few years. Nothing is written in stone. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:TVFAQ (a subpage of this project page) spells it out clearly under "
Verifiability" that the references should remain even after an episode of a TV series has aired. (When a future airdate is referenced, the reference should remain even after the episode airs. Date vandalism is rampant, so being able to quickly verify an airdate makes the article more valuable and is helpful to editors who combat vandalism. For aesthetic reasons, references can be condensed, for example if one source is used for all airdates, editors can insert one general reference at the top of the airdate column in a table, instead of on every line...
)
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
20:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's be honest here, at the end of the day the only thing we allow to not be directly sourced is the plot summary of an episode because you can verify it by watching it. Exceptions exist to lost shows, but overall we don't do in-line citations because an in-line citation would literally just be the information for the episode and thus you can watch it. Air dates and everything should always be sourced, because that's not something supported by a primary source (ala, primary source being the episode itself). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no consistency on who to list as the creator in the infobox of individual incarnations of long running late night talk show franchises. Some, like The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Seth Meyers list the creators of the original show, others like Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Conan O'Brien list who created that incarnation and others like The Late Late Show with James Corden don't list any creator at all. Personally, all three ways make sense to me, and I don't care which one we use. However, I strongly feel that whatever we choose, we should be consistent about it and apply it to all of the late night talk shows. JDDJS ( talk) 18:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Are we allowed to use seasons when listing release dates? See here, concerning a release in Summer 2019. WP:SEASON states "Avoid the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) as such uses are ambiguous". The reverting editor stated that MOS's are irrelevant when it comes to sources, stating that we can quote them verbatim per WP:V (is this a thing?), and that "it's unambiguous when it's directly from a source referring to an American production", disregarding the fact that the English server of Wikipedia serves the entire world, not just America. -- Alex TW 17:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me taking this here, what with the last time we had a content altercation, your concern was about "winning" the discussion (your words).Obviously, you don't understand context. Here is the exact quote from Talk:Tangled: The Series#Source:
When it's 3-plus versus one, that usually shows you which side of the argument is "winning" as it were... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 06:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)There was a reason IJBall put "winning" in quotation marks. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with those noting that this is not the American Wikipedia, and so even though we are talking about an American movie we should still do so in a way that everyone can understand. There is nothing wrong with avoiding vague terms like "Summer" which mean different things to different people. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
an Australian reading that might mis-interpret what "summer" means.- As an Australian I can confirm that. Summer is when we have Christmas, complete with backyard cricket games and copious amounts of beer and prawns. (We don't have "Fosters" or "shrimp"). As for "fall" that's what you do when you've had too much beer and prawns while playing cricket on a hot Christmas day. MOS:SEASON does say that you can use unambigious alternatives but unambiguous means for the reader, without having to check the origin of sources. The example used is
spent the southern summer in Antarctica. Clearly "southern summer" refers to the summer of the southern hemisphere, where Antarctica is located. The reader doesn't have to do any research to understand that. It's unambiguous. "summer" on its own is ambiguous regardless of how many sources are included. I remember seeing US articles about the 2000 Summer Olympics and referring to them being held during Australia's summer when it was actually the beginning of spring. In more recent years I've seen press releases quoting a "summer" start for a season that starts in late September. It's all very confusing. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It's only "slightly less accurate" when viewing this entirely through the lens of North America. That's the basis for this discussion is that this is English speaking Wikipedia, and they speak English beyond just North America. "Mid 2019" is technically more accurate on a global scale, because the months are the months no matter where you go, but "Summer" means something different depending on the location. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Remember that thing we started back in August 2016 to update MOS:TV? Sorry for the lack of drive to complete. Anyways, there has been a proposed update to WP:TVINTL that seems to have consensus from the users who commented. Hoping to get more eyes/thoughts on it before it is implemented. You can find all the info regarding the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Release, with the proposal specifically at the "Proposal 1" section. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Doctor Who#RfC: Infobox image. This discussion has quoted TVIMAGE and NFCC concerning an infobox image, with the discussion relating to whether that image should be free or non-free media. --
Alex
TW
22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Fairly OddParents#Confirmation show has been cancelled. The show's creator, Butch Hartman, left Nickelodeon in early February 2018, and a number of editors (IPs, autoconfirmeds, and at least one EC) are assuming the show has been cancelled as a result when there has been no official word from Nickelodeon about its fate. Sources presented on the talk page or in edits made to the article do not explicitly state that Nickelodeon has cancelled the series following Hartman's departure.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
18:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. This is somewhat relevant to our project since many of our articles cite Deadline Hollywood. There is currently a discussion regarding how the website should be formatted in articles, as well as in citation templates, namely if it should be italicized or not. If you would like to join in, the discussion can be found at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Title style. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
At List of School of Rock episodes, there seems to be resistance on the inclusion of Template:School of Rock. Having created hundreds of these types of multimedia templates (see the lower part of User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created) it has generally become standard to include such templates on adaptations, sequels, episode lists, character lists, fictional characters, and sources. I am having trouble understanding why this particular episode list is any different than other episode lists. Since Amaury was the first to revert, I opened a discussion at User_talk:Amaury#Templates_in_School_of_Rock_articles, but got no response. I have since noticed that IJBall has also reverted this edit. What makes this episode list special in the sense that it is not well served by a navbox linking it to the other articles in the franchise.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like another WP:TV regular to take a look at the 'Series 3' section of The Last Kingdom (TV series) and indicate whether they think it's appropriate (in whole, or in part) or not. Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
multiple sources inform RenewCancelTV, which we don't accept. Also, per MOS:TVUPCOMING,
a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season.The entire section should be removed. -- Alex TW 14:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Starting a discussion here for Helmboy (please wait for it to conclude before reinstating the edit), what are editors' thoughts of this edit on the template? -- Alex TW 01:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a common thing, I've noticed, for an editor to update the statistics for websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, especially for films and television series, and not update the access-date parameter when they do so. For editors that do not do this, a user talk namespace template message would be handy, so I've made {{ uw-accessdate1}} and {{ uw-accessdate2}} for this sort of situation. Enjoy. -- Alex TW 00:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, a website often cited by this Project, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I created Draft: The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis after seeing the to do list and seeing it listed as a high priority episode for creation. However, it has now been nominated for deletion. As a new editor, I've added all references & details that I could think of, can someone please guide me in what else I could do to make the page stick? Would appreciate the help, it's one of the first drafts I've created from scratch and would love to see it live on Wikipedia. TheOneWorkingAccount ( talk) 06:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, we have finally moved on to the next section for our larger MOS update. It is the "Reception" section pertaining to parent, season and episode articles. You can find and join the discussion regarding its text here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it correct to use Twitter as a source for the ratings of a TV show?, for example this account, publishes ratings daily, as well as for Spanish-speaking countries, as well as for the United States. The account is verified, but what happens with ratings for USA are a little contradictory, because sometimes they do not give exact figures, and according to them each TV program always have the same amount of rating. But it is a Twitter account backed by several popular television and web sites.-- Philip J Fry / talk 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sources: Currently watching the show on the IDGO App, where all seasons and episodes are listed in order.
The page for the TV Show Disappeared on ID, has episodes listed incorrectly, and I don't know how to edit the page to fix it. I tried copying and pasting the info into the correct place, but it didn't work.
For example, season 3 of Disappeared has 13 episodes, not 17, like is listed on the page: /info/en/?search=List_of_Disappeared_episodes#Season_3_(2011)
The last episode on the IDGO App, is Episode 13: Silent Night.
And then from there, season 4 starts with Episode 1: Running For Her Life, and ends with Episode 14: Innocence Lost
Season 5 starts with Episode 1: The Road Not Taken - Episode 17: Missing By Design
Season 6 starts with Episode 1: Lost in the Dark - Episode 15: At the Crossroads
Season 7 starts with Episode 1: Somebody's Watching - Episode 10: Girl Interrupted
Season 8 starts with Episode 1: American Gothic - Episode 13: The Long Way Home
Season 9 starts with Episode 1: A Date with Danger (Note, this is a brand new season and the only episode that's aired so far.) JaSamFan2018 ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I need more eyes on Peep and the Big Wide World. A user keeps adding fake spin-off of the show. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Parks and Recreation (season 1) for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.
If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated House (TV series) for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.
If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, a brand new user created Colors (Indian TV channel) which has most of the same information that can be found at Viacom 18. The big difference is that the Colors article has a wall of satellite and cable channel listings. It looks like there might've been an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada which mentioned Colors (TV channel). This latter article was ultimately redirected to Viacom 18. Any ideas what should be done? Are all the channel listings noteworthy? Should they be merged to Viacom 18? I've opened a discussion at Talk:Colors (Indian TV channel)#Why does this channel exist?. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
For many days, a user who we know as The UPN Vandal keeps adding Mark Hamill to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 8) without a real reliable source and has been told repeatedly to stop it. The page is protected for four days now. I would be grateful to have more eyes on the page in case that user does it again. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 09:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Olivia Pope, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV. --
Alex
TW
21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that Primeval be moved to Primeval (TV series). Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Primeval#Requested move 27 March 2018. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
A disambiguating uncertainty has developed due to the fact that three TV series – Two British and one American – have used this title. The discussion is currently active at Talk:That's My Boy (UK TV series)#Requested move 23 March 2018. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I Do (Lost), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
One of Us (Lost), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I've started WP:Good article reassessment/Roseanne Barr/1 and welcome input from others. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 22:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. So, we have a pending AfC submission at Draft:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) for the upcoming fourth season of the show Fear the Walking Dead. I declined the draft at AfC back in January on the basis that it was too soon for an article about the season. It's been several months now and the season is set to premiere in a couple weeks. Editors are divided over whether now is the right time to move the draft into mainspace, or whether we should have a season article at all. Personally, I'm not sure, and I would appreciate further input at Draft talk:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) if you have time. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 23:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Victoria Wood as Seen on TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion to rename the Category:Television shows tree to Category:Television programs/programmes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 8#Category:Television shows by country. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There are still some fictional characters that have articles that fail GNG, I am not sure about Didier Baptiste, that fictional character has some citations. However Jason Porter, Lee Presley, Leon Richards, Casper Rose, Frank Stone (Dream Team), Danny Sullivan (Dream Team) and Vivian Wright. I put Vivian Wright to AfD again, I am not sure if the names are really notable to warrant a redirect, I was looking to straight up delete them, Maybe someone else can look in them, cheers. Govvy ( talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Further comments requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Can we deprecate the disambiguator "(miniseries)"? -- wooden superman 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The article List of guest stars on The A-Team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unreferenced list containing many non-notable actors and appearances. Some other pages in Category:Lists of guest appearances in television confine themselves to guest *stars*, but this one is not really useful even as a starting point.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. –
Fayenatic
London
06:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Additional input from members of this WikiProject would be welcome at a move discussion in progress at Talk:TV listings (UK)#Requested move 10 April 2018. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Does Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists meet WP:TVSHOW? As a TV pilot that has so far not been picked up to series, it does not seem like it meets TVSHOW, and should probably be moved to WP:Draftspace in the meantime... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Edge (Fox TV series)#Requested move 15 April 2018. Discussion on this
WP:RM discussion seems to have stalled, so soliciting more opinion from WP:TV regulars on this one. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
03:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.
The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the ==K== section. Looking at the preview, they don't look the same. I suspect that the problem is that someone removed most, but not all, of the table that was in the ==J== section, so this may be simply a side effect of unnoticed vandalism (unless there have never been any fictional countries whose names start with J?).
This second list is "misnested tags". See
mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting indicates that the problem is in {{nihongo|'''Skyloft|'''スカイロフト|Sukai Rofuto}}
. It's probably because the three apostrophes (to end the bold) are in the wrong parameter for the template (it should be three apostrophes, Skyloft, three more apostrophes, and then the pipe).
For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 23:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Reunion (Westworld)#Move into main space. This discussion whether
Reunion (Westworld) should or should not exist as a mainspace article based primarily on the existence of plot and reviews; the same applies for the previous episode,
Journey into Night. --
Alex
TW
04:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I have made a nomination to merge Category:Televsion actors to Category:Actors. I have also tried to start a village pump discussion on the matter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
We really need to add something to WP:NTV about TV movies. The fact of the matter is: most TV movies are not notable enough for standalone articles on Wikipedia, because they have no hope of clearing WP:GNG. (Of course, the same is also true for individual TV series episodes, but let's leave that aside for now...) In other words, the number of TV movies that achieve the level of notability of, say, The Burning Bed (and this article is currently under-soruced – I imagine there's a lot more sourcing out there for this one...) or The Day After, is very low indeed.
I am seeing far too many "junk" TV movie articles created lately (e.g. Green Dolphin Beat) that do not meet WP:GNG, enough that we need to add something about this to our TV notability guideline (a la the whole section on TV pilots...).
Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Many television films do not receive extensive independent coverage, and thus will not be notable enough for a standalone article."were added to WP:NTV. Even a sentence like this will be helpful in deletion discussions IMO (and can also be cited to prolific TV movie article creators.) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Wonderfalls#Episode order revisited. Another discussion about episode ordering in episode tables is ensuing, which is of general interest to this project. In addition, this discussion also touches on
Firefly (TV series) as well, so more opinions on this would be useful. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Not getting responses locally so was wondering if there was any other input from others for the discussion located here: Talk:The Challenge (TV series)#Champs vs. Stars (naming) in regards to the Champs vs. Stars series. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Opinions on are needed on the following: Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Here's what I'd like to do. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns creating a "Powers and abilities" section for someone like Daenerys Targaryen and other Game of Thrones characters who have powers, and whether such a section can be encyclopedic. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Before I think about taking this to WP:AfD, I'd like to solicit opinion here first.
This is a case that absolutely tests the limits of WP:TVSHOW – Yes, it aired nationally. But it was such low-profile/so lowly-rated that it got almost no coverage, especially in 2005 (the year it aired!!). There is nothing on this that I can find in Variety (which shocks me, as they cover everything, even TV shows for toddlers!!), THR, Entertainment Weekly, or The New York Times or Los Angeles Times. I gets a perfunctory entry at TV Guide. It doesn't even have an entry at EpGuides.
The only legit source I've been able to find on it is an article, five-years after the fact, in The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina (where the series was filmed, which possibly explains why it didn't get coverage in the usual L.A./NYC outlets...). Indeed, is the fact that it was the "first" TV series to be filmed Charleston, South Carolina in and of itself enough to make this series "notable"?
So, is this show actually notable?! I'm curious to hear any WP:TV regular's comments on this, but I'm going to ping TAnthony to this, as I'm particularly interested in their opinion on this one.
Full disclosure: I remember this series, and watched the pilot – it was the most low-budget, amateurish "TV series" I've ever seen reach air on American broadcast television, and was about as well-produced as a cable public-access TV show. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Confederate (TV series)#Requested move 13 May 2018. This move request concerns the move of a television series article to the draft space, based on the fact that the series' production is still in development and has yet to receive a series order. --
Alex
TW
09:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Somebody just moved Magnum, P.I. to Magnum, P.I. (1980 TV series). I object to this move – in a similar situation, we did not move Fantasy Island to Fantasy Island (1977 TV series) just because of Fantasy Island (1998 TV series) because the former was clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The same applies here – the 1980 TV series is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC until shown to be otherwise.
I'd reverse this move on my own, but this likely requires an Admin to undo it. Pinging Cyphoidbomb. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep on the lookout... It's May sweeps, so every new editor is wanting to create articles for newly announced series that haven't gone into production yet. Just take a look at my contributions of trying to battle this. -- Alex TW 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please give the new editor a hand at Wicked Tuna. The episode table seems to go to previous version of the article. I don't know why. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please help. The episode list table has all circ links. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I am looking for Corner Gas Animated ratings. I've done searches and can't find anything outside of the first episode "Bone Dry" which has already been added to the article with a source. Any help would be appreciated. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Lucifer episodes#Bonus episodes. --
Alex
TW
00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Just an update, I know a lot of editors used TVShowsOnDVD for home media releases and covers. Per their site, they're officially shutting down the website, but they'll be remaining active on Facebook and Twitter. More here. -- Alex TW 06:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised by this news as they were quite a popular website if you look at their monthly views. Also, it looks like Wikipedia accounted for 40% of that traffic according to Similarweb. There's going to be a lot of pages in need of update I would imagine. Esuka323 ( talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
As a fortunate note: older links on the site appear to be cached at the Wayback Machine (archive.org). There probably should be an effort to make sure appropriate archiveurl and archivedates are added to existing references using TVShowsOnDVD. -- Masem ( t) 13:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 28 May 2018. This concerns a mass-move request for articles under
WP:BIGBROTHER, and
WP:NCTV. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have just been looking at Coast vs Country and noticed that this is a brief article, saying that it is a reality television series and has aired since November 2016. Do you think it should be put up as a candidate at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion? Vorbee ( talk) 17:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at the Roseanne Barr talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Could someone please expand Gary Garfinkel? I read his obituaries and decided to create a stub but I am not an expert about television. Thanks! Zigzig20s ( talk) 12:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The Smurfs episodes were aired during the 80s but the term TBA (To be announced) is used for writing credits of several episodes. I don't think the term is right for credits that won't ever be "announced". I think we should replace it with something else. (I've just discussed Luigi1090, he thinks it would be a "vandalism act" to use another term). What do you think ? Elfast ( talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
TableTBA|N/A}}
instead – no one should object to this. P.S. "TBA" should not be "typed out" in those tables anyway – they should be left blank, letting the template handle it. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Hello WikiProject Television,
Although I've technically had a Wiki account for over a year, I've only been dabbling with editing from time to time, so I'm still very much a novice. If I've placed this request for help in the wrong place, please forgive me. I would appreciate any feedback on how I can do better.
I'm currently active in editing Busted!. It's a Netflix Original made to appeal to the Korean and global market. The thing is, there is conflicting information about the show's title. When watching the show on Netflix (U.S.), it comes up as simply "Busted!" However, when it was originally announced to Korean news sources, they were given the name 범인은 바로 너, which can be translated in different ways. The literal translation is "The Culprit is You" or "The Criminal is You." On the other hand, Netflix's press releases in English refer to the show as "Busted! I Know Who You Are" or simply "Busted!" in their press release titles. Korean news sources that report in English have done used both titles from Netflix's press releases.
My questions: Is using "Busted!" as the article's title correct, or should it be using the longer title "Busted! I Know Who You Are"? On the side box for the article, I changed the title to "Busted! I Know Who You Are" but another editor reverted my change. In retrospect, I understand the reversion. However, I feel like the official long title should somehow be part of the article's basic info. Where does it fit in?
Thanks for any guidance you all can give this noob. Filamjam ( talk) 03:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Otōto (TV drama) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article appears to have been unsourced since it was created in 2007, and has been tagged as such since 2012. There's no corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article which might be used to find sources relevant to the article and a search for such sources came up empty, so this does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Takuya Kimura is a very well-known Japanese actor, but this seems to be something he was in very early in his career when he was not as famous as he is these days, so the show might not have generated the press coverage that some of his later shows received.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Wayward Pines#RFC. --
Alex
TW
09:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
A discussion on the talk page of Downton Abbey raises wider issues that belong here, relating to PBS Masterpiece programmes generally, and indeed how the stated nationality of TV series is determined across WP. These two issues are summarised below.
Firstly, however, the 'problem' is best illustrated using Downton - described on WP as British-American (as are other Masterpiece series - an outcome that edit & talk history reveals was fought for across multiple pages by a tiny handful of editors).
Yet Encyclopaedia Britannica (US headquartered) describes Downton as "a British television series". IMDB has country of origin as "UK". In the UK, Downton is described by the Guardian as "British TV drama", by the Telegraph as "a British television show", and by the Radio Times as "British television". In the US, Downton is one of CNN's "British TV shows that are watched all over the world", described by the Washington Post as a "British TV show", the New York Times as the "popular British TV series", by Fox News as "Britain's hit TV show", the Philadelphia Magazine as "the popular British TV show", and by cabletv.com as one of "America's favorite British TV shows". NME.com refers to the "British costume drama series" and vulture.com as a "British show". Pressreader.com: "the British television series". By a semi-academic book of critical essays about the programme as "this British series". You can hunt through local newspapers and media sites across across the States and find similar. Hollywood Reporter: "a British import". Amazon.com sells the DVDs as "the original UK version". Nola (New Orleans) media group: "acclaimed British series". Forbes.com says the "show has been sold to over 220 territories, which is an incredible feat for British television". Los Angeles Times: "British television series".
Across the world...in Canada Canadian Netflix categorises Downton among "British TV Dramas movies and series". ETCanada refer to the "popular British series". India, Ireland, Singapore, Australia - global reputable media outlets mostly contain similar. Yes, there is indeed a very small sprinkling of references to "British/American" on the internet, but few from more reputable sources; indeed, most of the hits derive from text back-copied from WP itself.
Regarding PBS/Masterpiece, PBS refers on PBS.org to "The blockbuster successful British TV series", and its executive producer Ms Eaton to new funding including for more episodes of Downton as part of "truly a golden age of British television and we're very proud of this affirmation of the MASTERPIECE brand". WP's own page for Masterpiece (TV series) refers to its role being to present "acclaimed British productions" and the same role is widely referred to online, for example "PBS for British programs" (an American media website), Weta.com (greater Washington) refers to PBS's series "featuring British adaptations", Time magazine to Masterpiece as PBS "British drama", decided.com's description of Masterpiece as "dedicated to showcasing the best in foreign — in this case, British — entertainment", etc.
This lengthy canter through the sources underlines how significantly out of line is the WP article with the RS.
The two issues that arise from this are:
1. Synthesis to arrive at a different conclusion to reputable sources
Across WP, standards of referencing are rightly high. Especially at GA and FA, the most pedestrian of facts must be referenced directly; editors do not include statements based on their own analysis or synthesis of information derived from sources (even where likely to be correct). Why should the nationality of television series be different?
Articles should surely reference authoritative sources directly, rather than editors conducting their own research into the various individuals and entitles referred to in credits and elsewhere, in order to establish their (and hence the programme's) purported nationality.
If the answer to this first question is that nationality should indeed be referenced directly, then the second question falls. However, if the Wikiproject can justify its different approach, the second question arises:
2. Why should funding and distribution change the nationality of a creative product?
This is pertinent to Masterpiece. No-one would take such an approach with art, literature or music - for example, I might personally provide 100% of the funding, and some high-level direction, to commission a foreign (to me) author, artist or composer to produce a book, painting or piece of music to my broad specifications. No-one would then claim that this makes the artwork (in my case) part-British! If I tell and pay an Italian artist to go paint a picture of a particular Italian town, it remains an Italian painting.
How is television different? PBS/Masterpiece is widely referenced as a brand that delivers British television to American audiences, sometimes putting up 10-15% of the funding and getting some high-level advance input into the nature of the end product. But the product remains British television, produced and directed by British people (and in Masterpiece's case usually with mostly British storylines, locations and casts), and is widely recognised as being British television by reputable sources ex-WP.
This suggests that, even if a non-referenced approach continues, our decision process need to change, focusing on the nationality of the creative product rather than who might help to pay for or distribute it. But it would be better, cleaner, simpler, and more consistent with the WP-wide approach and with the standards applied to our very best articles, to require direct referencing of statements as to a series's nationality. Where sources conflict, we already have policies and lots of experience to resolve any issues. MapReader ( talk) 13:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If a series' nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g. being produced solely by American production companies), it should be identified in the opening sentence.– so "dual" or "multi" national productions should not have countries listed in the lede, only single-nation productions should. (This is similar to WP:FILMLEAD on this score.) So, regardless of whether describing Downton as "British-American" is accurate or not, it should not be listed that way in the lede... As per multi-national productions, I don't know that we have a "rule" on it, but in general I think the procedure is to "Follow the money." If a substantial portion of the production funding was put up by American PBS, then you can call it a co-production. But, really, if Downton was going to be produced in the UK with or without PBS's funding, then I'd say it's really a "British" (only) production... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk)
Proposal: The two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of the relevant section of the MoS (from "If a..." onwards) should become a separate paragraph and be replaced with:
"A series's nationality, if singularly defined, should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, and identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced. Editors should be careful not to infer the nationality of a series or production entity where such information is not verifiable by citation from a reliable source." MapReader ( talk) 05:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposal moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Proposed MoS change: Nationality MapReader ( talk) 13:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw on a web site that a TV station is moving its digital channel. This is happening a lot, according to that site. I was watching a TV station which announced that today is the day to rescan. The process is (sort of) explained at Spectrum reallocation#Repacking (someone did improve that article, which I contributed a lot of content to, but it might need further improvement). There should probably be a standard way of adding these changes to TV stations' articles. What I did on WCSC-TV could probably be improved on.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated KaDee Strickland for a Wikipedia:Featured article review/KaDee Strickland/archive1 as the article has not been properly updated since its promotion as a featured article back in 2005. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on Portable hole. When I started, it was almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. I've made some progress finding sources, but not as much as I'd like. Many entries remain unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are, admittedly, not reliable. There's no doubt that this is a notable concept, having been used in film, cartoons, and literature by many authors. But, good sources are hard to find. I'd appreciate any help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Could I get some other editors watching NCIS (season 15), please? I adjusted the colours [3] using my script, per the whole COLOR discussion, and had an editor ( Jp113040) revert me [4] with the summary of "What do you think am I, stupid or something, you're not the boss of the colors, I AM, you understand me?! I told you, do not mess with my previous color!". This editor's been warned for non-compliant colours and OWN behaviour before, per their talk page. Cheers. -- Alex TW 03:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Would appreciate some input on an issue over at Talk:Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee#Netflix episode order. Quick summary: I was looking at this show on Netflix and went to check the article over here. While looking at the episode list I noticed that its not even close to what Netflix has. The previous 9 seasons were rearranged into 4 seasons (called "collections") and the episodes from the seasons have also been rearranged between those (and not in order). I'm trying to figure out if there is any technical solution to have two lists, as both lists cannot share the same tables, as there is no reader-friendly way of moving from entry to entry by order. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:WUPV#RfC about content in the Programming section. This is probably something that should have a standardized approach rather than be argued article-by-article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, all. I've added to the usage of {{ Aired episodes}} with a new template I've made, {{ Template parameter value}}. The latter template pulls the value of a specific parameter in a specific template in a specific article, which, for television articles, removes the requirement of the "onlyinclude" tags in the parent article and the |num={{:Showname}} in the "aired episodes" template.
For example, here and here show the updated usages. You can remove the "onlyinclude" tags and the |num= parameter, and just add |showpage= instead. Not to worry though, the regular |num= still works! It's only an addition. Just an update I thought I'd share, might make life easier for television editors. -- Alex TW 16:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In January 2018, i submitted some suggestions in the template's talk page. They concern the format of the data table, the citation style and the appearance of the graph (a fixed distance between the bars). Five months later, no changes have been made, so i would like to once again draw your attention to it. -- Radiphus 09:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split?. --
Alex
TW
05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. If an American show on broadcast television reaches a second season (which generally means a count of more than 13 episodes, if not 22), is that the time to split off the episodes into a separate article? If this question has already been addressed, where can I find that answer—in the MOS? Or somewhere else?
(I originally asked the question here.) — DocWatson42 ( talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
If the contributors of this discussion are interested, there is a very similar discussion going on at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split? about the validity of splitting very early, and whether they should be merged again, or left as-is. -- Alex TW 05:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, is there any article precedent for the existence of List of longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV? I have kind of a problem with the user who created it--they've fabricated a lot of citation titles so that they say things like "Sasural Simar Ka' completes 2,000 episodes, thus, becoming second longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV till date" when in fact the reference titles say something much different, ex: "'Sasural Simar Ka' Completes 2,000 Episodes".
The user is also adding this content to articles, ostensibly to make these series sound more important (?). Arbitrary and very specific records/milestones like "seventh longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV and second longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV which is on air" just reads as a form of WP:PUFFERY to me. I mean, there are a lot of qualifiers there, like are there other series that aren't Indian that have run longer on Colors TV? Anyway, I appreciate a contrary opinion if anybody has one. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Single-season TV series are not supposed to have stand-alone "List of episodes" articles. Yet this one is a WP:FL. (It probably shouldn't be, but that's a separate issue...) So, merge the LoE back to Highlander: The Raven anyway? Or leave it be?... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thought I'd see if any editors over here would like to help resolve this discussion happening over at the talk page for The Handmaid's Tale here: Talk:The Handmaid's Tale (TV series)#References to Trump and Pence need to be deleted. A few days ago an editor removed this section from the article's Reception section:
There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society following
Donald Trump and
Mike Pence's elections as
President and
Vice President of the United States, respectively.
[1]
[2] A comparison has also been made to the
Salafi/
Wahabbi extremism of
ISIL, under which enslaved women of religious minorities are passed around and utilized as sex objects and vessels to bear new jihadis.
[3]
[4]
[5]
I reverted the user's deletion (which their edit summary explained was done in the interest in making the article "neutral) due to the fact that the sentence was adequately cited and seemed to posses no open political bias in its current composition. Hoping to have this conflict end soon as I try to avoid getting into political discussions here on Wikipedia. Hope to see some input over there! – BoogerD ( talk) 19:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
MOS:US states that the abbreviation style of U.S. is deprecated, and that we should be using US (no full stops). It does also says to "retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it". Should we change it to US in {{ Episode table}} for the viewers parameter? Thoughts? It would match up with UK. -- Alex TW 14:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK" which would be a fairly common occurance in television articles, such as "...airs on NBC in the U.S. and BBC in the UK." I think consistency is best here, both across Wikipedia articles and between US, UK, UAE, etc. in television-related articles -- Whats new? (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
With a few opposing voices, I'd say that there's a pretty solid agreement from the contributing editors to change usages to US, especially for consistency with similar usages (UK, EU, UN, etc.), as well as consistency with outside Methods of Style. I would, of course, be interested in hearing any further opinions. -- Alex TW 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I'll run AWB on usages of {{ Episode table}}, write up a new sentence for the MoS, and ask whereabouts we would request a large list of article renames. -- Alex TW 02:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Gosh. What a lovely club y'all have. Was the invitation to the party announced? Well, be that as it may ... for posterity:
2. In American English, however, it is common to use a full stop/period as an alternative style for certain abbreviations, in particular:
USA or U.S.A.
US or U.S. Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Chicago style is USA (without periods), but we also accept both US and U.S. Other authoritative style manuals and dictionaries vary in their recommendations. Please see CMOS 10.4 and 10.33 for guidelines and discussion. The Chicago Manual of Sylte Online. The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition, 2017.
Had you sent an invitation other Wikipedians might have brought party favors to the voting booth. Cheers! Pyxis Solitary 20:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. There was no pressing need for this change. You can't pose a question, yourself determine the consensus, and then proceed to change 2760 articles in 4.5 hours. Also, using the AWB tool in this way goes against WP:AWBRULES #2 and #3 - this is clearly controversial and you are not applying the guideline properly, which states to retain usage. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
As it may be relevant to this WikiProject, this is a notice that I've created the template {{ Draft notice}} for ease of access in alerting user and article talk pages of drafts. -- Alex TW 08:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Draft at}}
title, so I've proposed it be moved there. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:At the Movies (1982–90 TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Calendar (American TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Addams Family (1973 animated series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Three articles on which I have worked have had the "Television articles with incorrect naming style" category added. I had not heard of that category before, and when I went to the page with that heading, I found no explanation on it or on its talk page.
What constitutes incorrect naming style for a TV show? Eddie Blick ( talk) 12:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, starting to tackle some of these, and some will get a {{
Please see}}
followup here (and at
WT:NCTV) (e.g. see below). --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Update: I think I've gone through and moved/corrected most of the "low-hanging fruit" in the category through the letter "L", opening formal WP:RMs in those cases where I thought it was advisable. I'll try to go through the bottom of the alphabet in the category within the next 24 hours... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections
Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Vikings (TV documentary series). Already the subject of multiple
WP:RMs involving several WP:TV "regulars", I'd like some more opinions on this one before trying to tackle it... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
21:53, 15 July 2018 (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 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
i want to be a part of wikiproject television and biography but can't figure out. please advice. xo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to cleanup the infoboxes at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7) and related season articles but I've been getting some pushback from two editors there. I've reached three reverts for today so I'd appreciate some extra eyes on the articles. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 05:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I hate to say this again, but I would be very grateful if to many more eyes on Adventures of the Little Koala again. The unregistered user traced to North Carolina is slowly resuming to remove CBS and Cookie Jar without hard evidence from the page. If that person cannot come up with a good compromise, our only opinion is to have the page protected indefinitely. I already lost my interest on the show because of that ridiculous problem and just got back to it and I don't want to lose again. I feel so alone. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 10:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about a challenged split of List of Star Wars characters into multiple smaller articles based on individual Star Wars films and works, which involved the creation of eleven new articles. Currently, it is felt that the list is too long, especially after many past discussions to address this have gone unimplemented, and does not meet guidelines. However, it is also felt that the split structure is not effective and fails to improve. There is also a discussion about notability as it applies to character lists, whether all characters listed must meet a full threshold of notability expected for standalone articles or if there is a lesser threshold for inclusion on lists. Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Star Wars characters#This list doesn't meet the list selection criteria ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Friends, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone has added this distinction to numerous tv series articles in the awards section, for example Star Trek: Discovery. In my opinion this is not a notable award as it's essentially a blog writer's personal opinion as opposed to say the Emmys or Guild awards which are given out by notable organizations. I know that MOS:FILM has criteria for awards that say online only entities should not be included and though this project doesnt seem to have an awards section it should probably be compatible. Thoughts? Spanneraol ( talk) 16:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no. I don't have to deal with this. I came here to post a notification of a GAR on a popular TV show's article, saw another discussion related to our coverage of another TV show I enjoy, and decided to comment. But if the discussion is going to be about rehashing personal squabbles rather than improving the encyclopedia, then I don't want anything to do with it. Please ignore my above stricken comment. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Has this been discussed here before? The problem, if there is one, is the WikiProject Video games folk using (series) unless a (TV series) clashes. Opinions? In ictu oculi ( talk) 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
When disambiguation is required, use (TV series). -- Radiphus 15:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
At Christopher Kimball's Milk Street I tried to add episodes but cannot get the formatting right. Could someone please help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
A proposal has been made to merge Bulk and Skull, Adam Park and Tommy Oliver into Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Please join the discussion at Talk:Mighty Morphin Power Rangers!— A L T E R C A R I ✍ 16:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
For anyone who does not know, IMDb has reorganised its character pages and consequently, {{ IMDb character}} no longer works. The character information has not been deleted entirely, there is now just a lot less and the pages are at a different url. See, for example, Mr Spock. The template has now been nominated for deletion. For those interested, the discussion is here. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I know the current procedure is to remove references for airdates after an episode has aired. However, we have multiple vandals who like to mess with airdates (see, for example,
User:EvergreenFir/socks#Present and
User:EvergreenFir/socks#British). To help combat this type of vandalism, and in the spirit of
WP:V, I think we should have sources given for episode airdates. One of the easier ways to do this is to reference the Amazon or iTunes listings like I did at
Danny Phantom. I honestly don't know why we remove references. Just add a general reference to |airdateR=
and we'll be okay.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
06:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If airdates for a series are contentious, it may be beneficial to include either a reference for the "Airdate" column in the episode table, or general citations in the Reference section that verify airdates.(I'm particularly fond of the later approach, including links to The Futon Critic, Zap2It and TV Guide to source general episode data once the ref is removed after airing.) - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 06:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
|airdateR=
. Outside of that, we don't need it for series where there is not an issue. --
Alex
TW
17:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"...or is likely to be challenged..."You appear to live in a word of only currently-airing TV series articles, and don't seem to give any thought about what happens 10, 20, 30 years down the road when these shows are over and there are no editors around who can verify airdates from having watched them (which is quasi- WP:OR-y in any case). In short, any inline sourcing that supports any information on a TV series should not be removed. As per WP:V. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
it seems widespread only through animated series, and perhaps a few older series. I have agree that it should be included where the dates are likely to be challenged already, however. Don't forget that sourcing overkill is also a thing. -- Alex TW 18:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
"...or is likely to be challenged..."It means exactly what it says. Likely to be challenged. Period. It doesn't say likely to be challenged already, it says likely to be challenged. So we don't have to wait for the first instance of date vandalism or what have you to occur. If a date change happens, to determine whether the change is correct or not, if we have column sources, we can quickly check the references without having to go searching for them because they were removed after said episode aired. What does it hurt to have column references there for past episodes? It doesn't hurt a single thing. In actuality, it hurts more to not have those references there. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I recommend that you understand the difference very soon.Or what? You're going to report us? Feel more than free, but good luck with getting any action taken. And just FYI, you're just making yourself look even worse by making threats like that. Not only that, but you're trying to control the discussion. If you think your tactics will work on me, then think again. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 20:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
|airdateR=
- my very first post in this was agreeing with Favre's suggestion, which is a more formal way of what I'm suggesting. And I said that if you have an issue with me, to take it to my talk page - WikiProject talk pages are for WikiProject matters, user talk pages are for matters about users. Actually, about that, why is this discussion here and not on the Manual of Style talk page? --
Alex
TW
22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)it is not necessary to include it for series where its not required, only series where there have been issues with dates.- Dates that seem uncontroversial now might be a problem in a few years. Nothing is written in stone. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:TVFAQ (a subpage of this project page) spells it out clearly under "
Verifiability" that the references should remain even after an episode of a TV series has aired. (When a future airdate is referenced, the reference should remain even after the episode airs. Date vandalism is rampant, so being able to quickly verify an airdate makes the article more valuable and is helpful to editors who combat vandalism. For aesthetic reasons, references can be condensed, for example if one source is used for all airdates, editors can insert one general reference at the top of the airdate column in a table, instead of on every line...
)
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
20:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's be honest here, at the end of the day the only thing we allow to not be directly sourced is the plot summary of an episode because you can verify it by watching it. Exceptions exist to lost shows, but overall we don't do in-line citations because an in-line citation would literally just be the information for the episode and thus you can watch it. Air dates and everything should always be sourced, because that's not something supported by a primary source (ala, primary source being the episode itself). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that there is no consistency on who to list as the creator in the infobox of individual incarnations of long running late night talk show franchises. Some, like The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Seth Meyers list the creators of the original show, others like Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Conan O'Brien list who created that incarnation and others like The Late Late Show with James Corden don't list any creator at all. Personally, all three ways make sense to me, and I don't care which one we use. However, I strongly feel that whatever we choose, we should be consistent about it and apply it to all of the late night talk shows. JDDJS ( talk) 18:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Are we allowed to use seasons when listing release dates? See here, concerning a release in Summer 2019. WP:SEASON states "Avoid the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) as such uses are ambiguous". The reverting editor stated that MOS's are irrelevant when it comes to sources, stating that we can quote them verbatim per WP:V (is this a thing?), and that "it's unambiguous when it's directly from a source referring to an American production", disregarding the fact that the English server of Wikipedia serves the entire world, not just America. -- Alex TW 17:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me taking this here, what with the last time we had a content altercation, your concern was about "winning" the discussion (your words).Obviously, you don't understand context. Here is the exact quote from Talk:Tangled: The Series#Source:
When it's 3-plus versus one, that usually shows you which side of the argument is "winning" as it were... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 06:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)There was a reason IJBall put "winning" in quotation marks. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 18:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with those noting that this is not the American Wikipedia, and so even though we are talking about an American movie we should still do so in a way that everyone can understand. There is nothing wrong with avoiding vague terms like "Summer" which mean different things to different people. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
an Australian reading that might mis-interpret what "summer" means.- As an Australian I can confirm that. Summer is when we have Christmas, complete with backyard cricket games and copious amounts of beer and prawns. (We don't have "Fosters" or "shrimp"). As for "fall" that's what you do when you've had too much beer and prawns while playing cricket on a hot Christmas day. MOS:SEASON does say that you can use unambigious alternatives but unambiguous means for the reader, without having to check the origin of sources. The example used is
spent the southern summer in Antarctica. Clearly "southern summer" refers to the summer of the southern hemisphere, where Antarctica is located. The reader doesn't have to do any research to understand that. It's unambiguous. "summer" on its own is ambiguous regardless of how many sources are included. I remember seeing US articles about the 2000 Summer Olympics and referring to them being held during Australia's summer when it was actually the beginning of spring. In more recent years I've seen press releases quoting a "summer" start for a season that starts in late September. It's all very confusing. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
It's only "slightly less accurate" when viewing this entirely through the lens of North America. That's the basis for this discussion is that this is English speaking Wikipedia, and they speak English beyond just North America. "Mid 2019" is technically more accurate on a global scale, because the months are the months no matter where you go, but "Summer" means something different depending on the location. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Remember that thing we started back in August 2016 to update MOS:TV? Sorry for the lack of drive to complete. Anyways, there has been a proposed update to WP:TVINTL that seems to have consensus from the users who commented. Hoping to get more eyes/thoughts on it before it is implemented. You can find all the info regarding the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Release, with the proposal specifically at the "Proposal 1" section. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Doctor Who#RfC: Infobox image. This discussion has quoted TVIMAGE and NFCC concerning an infobox image, with the discussion relating to whether that image should be free or non-free media. --
Alex
TW
22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Fairly OddParents#Confirmation show has been cancelled. The show's creator, Butch Hartman, left Nickelodeon in early February 2018, and a number of editors (IPs, autoconfirmeds, and at least one EC) are assuming the show has been cancelled as a result when there has been no official word from Nickelodeon about its fate. Sources presented on the talk page or in edits made to the article do not explicitly state that Nickelodeon has cancelled the series following Hartman's departure.
MPFitz1968 (
talk)
18:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. This is somewhat relevant to our project since many of our articles cite Deadline Hollywood. There is currently a discussion regarding how the website should be formatted in articles, as well as in citation templates, namely if it should be italicized or not. If you would like to join in, the discussion can be found at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Title style. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
At List of School of Rock episodes, there seems to be resistance on the inclusion of Template:School of Rock. Having created hundreds of these types of multimedia templates (see the lower part of User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created) it has generally become standard to include such templates on adaptations, sequels, episode lists, character lists, fictional characters, and sources. I am having trouble understanding why this particular episode list is any different than other episode lists. Since Amaury was the first to revert, I opened a discussion at User_talk:Amaury#Templates_in_School_of_Rock_articles, but got no response. I have since noticed that IJBall has also reverted this edit. What makes this episode list special in the sense that it is not well served by a navbox linking it to the other articles in the franchise.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like another WP:TV regular to take a look at the 'Series 3' section of The Last Kingdom (TV series) and indicate whether they think it's appropriate (in whole, or in part) or not. Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
multiple sources inform RenewCancelTV, which we don't accept. Also, per MOS:TVUPCOMING,
a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season.The entire section should be removed. -- Alex TW 14:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Starting a discussion here for Helmboy (please wait for it to conclude before reinstating the edit), what are editors' thoughts of this edit on the template? -- Alex TW 01:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a common thing, I've noticed, for an editor to update the statistics for websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, especially for films and television series, and not update the access-date parameter when they do so. For editors that do not do this, a user talk namespace template message would be handy, so I've made {{ uw-accessdate1}} and {{ uw-accessdate2}} for this sort of situation. Enjoy. -- Alex TW 00:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, a website often cited by this Project, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.-- Tenebrae ( talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I created Draft: The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis after seeing the to do list and seeing it listed as a high priority episode for creation. However, it has now been nominated for deletion. As a new editor, I've added all references & details that I could think of, can someone please guide me in what else I could do to make the page stick? Would appreciate the help, it's one of the first drafts I've created from scratch and would love to see it live on Wikipedia. TheOneWorkingAccount ( talk) 06:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, we have finally moved on to the next section for our larger MOS update. It is the "Reception" section pertaining to parent, season and episode articles. You can find and join the discussion regarding its text here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 04:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it correct to use Twitter as a source for the ratings of a TV show?, for example this account, publishes ratings daily, as well as for Spanish-speaking countries, as well as for the United States. The account is verified, but what happens with ratings for USA are a little contradictory, because sometimes they do not give exact figures, and according to them each TV program always have the same amount of rating. But it is a Twitter account backed by several popular television and web sites.-- Philip J Fry / talk 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Sources: Currently watching the show on the IDGO App, where all seasons and episodes are listed in order.
The page for the TV Show Disappeared on ID, has episodes listed incorrectly, and I don't know how to edit the page to fix it. I tried copying and pasting the info into the correct place, but it didn't work.
For example, season 3 of Disappeared has 13 episodes, not 17, like is listed on the page: /info/en/?search=List_of_Disappeared_episodes#Season_3_(2011)
The last episode on the IDGO App, is Episode 13: Silent Night.
And then from there, season 4 starts with Episode 1: Running For Her Life, and ends with Episode 14: Innocence Lost
Season 5 starts with Episode 1: The Road Not Taken - Episode 17: Missing By Design
Season 6 starts with Episode 1: Lost in the Dark - Episode 15: At the Crossroads
Season 7 starts with Episode 1: Somebody's Watching - Episode 10: Girl Interrupted
Season 8 starts with Episode 1: American Gothic - Episode 13: The Long Way Home
Season 9 starts with Episode 1: A Date with Danger (Note, this is a brand new season and the only episode that's aired so far.) JaSamFan2018 ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I need more eyes on Peep and the Big Wide World. A user keeps adding fake spin-off of the show. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Parks and Recreation (season 1) for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.
If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated House (TV series) for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.
If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, a brand new user created Colors (Indian TV channel) which has most of the same information that can be found at Viacom 18. The big difference is that the Colors article has a wall of satellite and cable channel listings. It looks like there might've been an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada which mentioned Colors (TV channel). This latter article was ultimately redirected to Viacom 18. Any ideas what should be done? Are all the channel listings noteworthy? Should they be merged to Viacom 18? I've opened a discussion at Talk:Colors (Indian TV channel)#Why does this channel exist?. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
For many days, a user who we know as The UPN Vandal keeps adding Mark Hamill to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 8) without a real reliable source and has been told repeatedly to stop it. The page is protected for four days now. I would be grateful to have more eyes on the page in case that user does it again. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 09:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Olivia Pope, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV. --
Alex
TW
21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor has suggested that Primeval be moved to Primeval (TV series). Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Primeval#Requested move 27 March 2018. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 11:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
A disambiguating uncertainty has developed due to the fact that three TV series – Two British and one American – have used this title. The discussion is currently active at Talk:That's My Boy (UK TV series)#Requested move 23 March 2018. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I Do (Lost), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
One of Us (Lost), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I've started WP:Good article reassessment/Roseanne Barr/1 and welcome input from others. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 22:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone. So, we have a pending AfC submission at Draft:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) for the upcoming fourth season of the show Fear the Walking Dead. I declined the draft at AfC back in January on the basis that it was too soon for an article about the season. It's been several months now and the season is set to premiere in a couple weeks. Editors are divided over whether now is the right time to move the draft into mainspace, or whether we should have a season article at all. Personally, I'm not sure, and I would appreciate further input at Draft talk:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) if you have time. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 23:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Victoria Wood as Seen on TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion to rename the Category:Television shows tree to Category:Television programs/programmes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 8#Category:Television shows by country. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There are still some fictional characters that have articles that fail GNG, I am not sure about Didier Baptiste, that fictional character has some citations. However Jason Porter, Lee Presley, Leon Richards, Casper Rose, Frank Stone (Dream Team), Danny Sullivan (Dream Team) and Vivian Wright. I put Vivian Wright to AfD again, I am not sure if the names are really notable to warrant a redirect, I was looking to straight up delete them, Maybe someone else can look in them, cheers. Govvy ( talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Further comments requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Can we deprecate the disambiguator "(miniseries)"? -- wooden superman 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
The article List of guest stars on The A-Team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unreferenced list containing many non-notable actors and appearances. Some other pages in Category:Lists of guest appearances in television confine themselves to guest *stars*, but this one is not really useful even as a starting point.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. –
Fayenatic
London
06:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Additional input from members of this WikiProject would be welcome at a move discussion in progress at Talk:TV listings (UK)#Requested move 10 April 2018. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Does Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists meet WP:TVSHOW? As a TV pilot that has so far not been picked up to series, it does not seem like it meets TVSHOW, and should probably be moved to WP:Draftspace in the meantime... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 14:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Edge (Fox TV series)#Requested move 15 April 2018. Discussion on this
WP:RM discussion seems to have stalled, so soliciting more opinion from WP:TV regulars on this one. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
03:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.
What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.
The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the ==K== section. Looking at the preview, they don't look the same. I suspect that the problem is that someone removed most, but not all, of the table that was in the ==J== section, so this may be simply a side effect of unnoticed vandalism (unless there have never been any fictional countries whose names start with J?).
This second list is "misnested tags". See
mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting indicates that the problem is in {{nihongo|'''Skyloft|'''スカイロフト|Sukai Rofuto}}
. It's probably because the three apostrophes (to end the bold) are in the wrong parameter for the template (it should be three apostrophes, Skyloft, three more apostrophes, and then the pipe).
For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 23:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Reunion (Westworld)#Move into main space. This discussion whether
Reunion (Westworld) should or should not exist as a mainspace article based primarily on the existence of plot and reviews; the same applies for the previous episode,
Journey into Night. --
Alex
TW
04:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I have made a nomination to merge Category:Televsion actors to Category:Actors. I have also tried to start a village pump discussion on the matter. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
We really need to add something to WP:NTV about TV movies. The fact of the matter is: most TV movies are not notable enough for standalone articles on Wikipedia, because they have no hope of clearing WP:GNG. (Of course, the same is also true for individual TV series episodes, but let's leave that aside for now...) In other words, the number of TV movies that achieve the level of notability of, say, The Burning Bed (and this article is currently under-soruced – I imagine there's a lot more sourcing out there for this one...) or The Day After, is very low indeed.
I am seeing far too many "junk" TV movie articles created lately (e.g. Green Dolphin Beat) that do not meet WP:GNG, enough that we need to add something about this to our TV notability guideline (a la the whole section on TV pilots...).
Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Many television films do not receive extensive independent coverage, and thus will not be notable enough for a standalone article."were added to WP:NTV. Even a sentence like this will be helpful in deletion discussions IMO (and can also be cited to prolific TV movie article creators.) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Wonderfalls#Episode order revisited. Another discussion about episode ordering in episode tables is ensuing, which is of general interest to this project. In addition, this discussion also touches on
Firefly (TV series) as well, so more opinions on this would be useful. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Not getting responses locally so was wondering if there was any other input from others for the discussion located here: Talk:The Challenge (TV series)#Champs vs. Stars (naming) in regards to the Champs vs. Stars series. WikiVirus C (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Opinions on are needed on the following: Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Here's what I'd like to do. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns creating a "Powers and abilities" section for someone like Daenerys Targaryen and other Game of Thrones characters who have powers, and whether such a section can be encyclopedic. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Before I think about taking this to WP:AfD, I'd like to solicit opinion here first.
This is a case that absolutely tests the limits of WP:TVSHOW – Yes, it aired nationally. But it was such low-profile/so lowly-rated that it got almost no coverage, especially in 2005 (the year it aired!!). There is nothing on this that I can find in Variety (which shocks me, as they cover everything, even TV shows for toddlers!!), THR, Entertainment Weekly, or The New York Times or Los Angeles Times. I gets a perfunctory entry at TV Guide. It doesn't even have an entry at EpGuides.
The only legit source I've been able to find on it is an article, five-years after the fact, in The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina (where the series was filmed, which possibly explains why it didn't get coverage in the usual L.A./NYC outlets...). Indeed, is the fact that it was the "first" TV series to be filmed Charleston, South Carolina in and of itself enough to make this series "notable"?
So, is this show actually notable?! I'm curious to hear any WP:TV regular's comments on this, but I'm going to ping TAnthony to this, as I'm particularly interested in their opinion on this one.
Full disclosure: I remember this series, and watched the pilot – it was the most low-budget, amateurish "TV series" I've ever seen reach air on American broadcast television, and was about as well-produced as a cable public-access TV show. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Confederate (TV series)#Requested move 13 May 2018. This move request concerns the move of a television series article to the draft space, based on the fact that the series' production is still in development and has yet to receive a series order. --
Alex
TW
09:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Somebody just moved Magnum, P.I. to Magnum, P.I. (1980 TV series). I object to this move – in a similar situation, we did not move Fantasy Island to Fantasy Island (1977 TV series) just because of Fantasy Island (1998 TV series) because the former was clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The same applies here – the 1980 TV series is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC until shown to be otherwise.
I'd reverse this move on my own, but this likely requires an Admin to undo it. Pinging Cyphoidbomb. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Keep on the lookout... It's May sweeps, so every new editor is wanting to create articles for newly announced series that haven't gone into production yet. Just take a look at my contributions of trying to battle this. -- Alex TW 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please give the new editor a hand at Wicked Tuna. The episode table seems to go to previous version of the article. I don't know why. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Please help. The episode list table has all circ links. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I am looking for Corner Gas Animated ratings. I've done searches and can't find anything outside of the first episode "Bone Dry" which has already been added to the article with a source. Any help would be appreciated. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Lucifer episodes#Bonus episodes. --
Alex
TW
00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Just an update, I know a lot of editors used TVShowsOnDVD for home media releases and covers. Per their site, they're officially shutting down the website, but they'll be remaining active on Facebook and Twitter. More here. -- Alex TW 06:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised by this news as they were quite a popular website if you look at their monthly views. Also, it looks like Wikipedia accounted for 40% of that traffic according to Similarweb. There's going to be a lot of pages in need of update I would imagine. Esuka323 ( talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
As a fortunate note: older links on the site appear to be cached at the Wayback Machine (archive.org). There probably should be an effort to make sure appropriate archiveurl and archivedates are added to existing references using TVShowsOnDVD. -- Masem ( t) 13:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 28 May 2018. This concerns a mass-move request for articles under
WP:BIGBROTHER, and
WP:NCTV. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I have just been looking at Coast vs Country and noticed that this is a brief article, saying that it is a reality television series and has aired since November 2016. Do you think it should be put up as a candidate at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion? Vorbee ( talk) 17:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
There is an RfC at the Roseanne Barr talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Could someone please expand Gary Garfinkel? I read his obituaries and decided to create a stub but I am not an expert about television. Thanks! Zigzig20s ( talk) 12:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
The Smurfs episodes were aired during the 80s but the term TBA (To be announced) is used for writing credits of several episodes. I don't think the term is right for credits that won't ever be "announced". I think we should replace it with something else. (I've just discussed Luigi1090, he thinks it would be a "vandalism act" to use another term). What do you think ? Elfast ( talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
TableTBA|N/A}}
instead – no one should object to this. P.S. "TBA" should not be "typed out" in those tables anyway – they should be left blank, letting the template handle it. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Hello WikiProject Television,
Although I've technically had a Wiki account for over a year, I've only been dabbling with editing from time to time, so I'm still very much a novice. If I've placed this request for help in the wrong place, please forgive me. I would appreciate any feedback on how I can do better.
I'm currently active in editing Busted!. It's a Netflix Original made to appeal to the Korean and global market. The thing is, there is conflicting information about the show's title. When watching the show on Netflix (U.S.), it comes up as simply "Busted!" However, when it was originally announced to Korean news sources, they were given the name 범인은 바로 너, which can be translated in different ways. The literal translation is "The Culprit is You" or "The Criminal is You." On the other hand, Netflix's press releases in English refer to the show as "Busted! I Know Who You Are" or simply "Busted!" in their press release titles. Korean news sources that report in English have done used both titles from Netflix's press releases.
My questions: Is using "Busted!" as the article's title correct, or should it be using the longer title "Busted! I Know Who You Are"? On the side box for the article, I changed the title to "Busted! I Know Who You Are" but another editor reverted my change. In retrospect, I understand the reversion. However, I feel like the official long title should somehow be part of the article's basic info. Where does it fit in?
Thanks for any guidance you all can give this noob. Filamjam ( talk) 03:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
The article Otōto (TV drama) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Article appears to have been unsourced since it was created in 2007, and has been tagged as such since 2012. There's no corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article which might be used to find sources relevant to the article and a search for such sources came up empty, so this does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Takuya Kimura is a very well-known Japanese actor, but this seems to be something he was in very early in his career when he was not as famous as he is these days, so the show might not have generated the press coverage that some of his later shows received.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Wayward Pines#RFC. --
Alex
TW
09:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
A discussion on the talk page of Downton Abbey raises wider issues that belong here, relating to PBS Masterpiece programmes generally, and indeed how the stated nationality of TV series is determined across WP. These two issues are summarised below.
Firstly, however, the 'problem' is best illustrated using Downton - described on WP as British-American (as are other Masterpiece series - an outcome that edit & talk history reveals was fought for across multiple pages by a tiny handful of editors).
Yet Encyclopaedia Britannica (US headquartered) describes Downton as "a British television series". IMDB has country of origin as "UK". In the UK, Downton is described by the Guardian as "British TV drama", by the Telegraph as "a British television show", and by the Radio Times as "British television". In the US, Downton is one of CNN's "British TV shows that are watched all over the world", described by the Washington Post as a "British TV show", the New York Times as the "popular British TV series", by Fox News as "Britain's hit TV show", the Philadelphia Magazine as "the popular British TV show", and by cabletv.com as one of "America's favorite British TV shows". NME.com refers to the "British costume drama series" and vulture.com as a "British show". Pressreader.com: "the British television series". By a semi-academic book of critical essays about the programme as "this British series". You can hunt through local newspapers and media sites across across the States and find similar. Hollywood Reporter: "a British import". Amazon.com sells the DVDs as "the original UK version". Nola (New Orleans) media group: "acclaimed British series". Forbes.com says the "show has been sold to over 220 territories, which is an incredible feat for British television". Los Angeles Times: "British television series".
Across the world...in Canada Canadian Netflix categorises Downton among "British TV Dramas movies and series". ETCanada refer to the "popular British series". India, Ireland, Singapore, Australia - global reputable media outlets mostly contain similar. Yes, there is indeed a very small sprinkling of references to "British/American" on the internet, but few from more reputable sources; indeed, most of the hits derive from text back-copied from WP itself.
Regarding PBS/Masterpiece, PBS refers on PBS.org to "The blockbuster successful British TV series", and its executive producer Ms Eaton to new funding including for more episodes of Downton as part of "truly a golden age of British television and we're very proud of this affirmation of the MASTERPIECE brand". WP's own page for Masterpiece (TV series) refers to its role being to present "acclaimed British productions" and the same role is widely referred to online, for example "PBS for British programs" (an American media website), Weta.com (greater Washington) refers to PBS's series "featuring British adaptations", Time magazine to Masterpiece as PBS "British drama", decided.com's description of Masterpiece as "dedicated to showcasing the best in foreign — in this case, British — entertainment", etc.
This lengthy canter through the sources underlines how significantly out of line is the WP article with the RS.
The two issues that arise from this are:
1. Synthesis to arrive at a different conclusion to reputable sources
Across WP, standards of referencing are rightly high. Especially at GA and FA, the most pedestrian of facts must be referenced directly; editors do not include statements based on their own analysis or synthesis of information derived from sources (even where likely to be correct). Why should the nationality of television series be different?
Articles should surely reference authoritative sources directly, rather than editors conducting their own research into the various individuals and entitles referred to in credits and elsewhere, in order to establish their (and hence the programme's) purported nationality.
If the answer to this first question is that nationality should indeed be referenced directly, then the second question falls. However, if the Wikiproject can justify its different approach, the second question arises:
2. Why should funding and distribution change the nationality of a creative product?
This is pertinent to Masterpiece. No-one would take such an approach with art, literature or music - for example, I might personally provide 100% of the funding, and some high-level direction, to commission a foreign (to me) author, artist or composer to produce a book, painting or piece of music to my broad specifications. No-one would then claim that this makes the artwork (in my case) part-British! If I tell and pay an Italian artist to go paint a picture of a particular Italian town, it remains an Italian painting.
How is television different? PBS/Masterpiece is widely referenced as a brand that delivers British television to American audiences, sometimes putting up 10-15% of the funding and getting some high-level advance input into the nature of the end product. But the product remains British television, produced and directed by British people (and in Masterpiece's case usually with mostly British storylines, locations and casts), and is widely recognised as being British television by reputable sources ex-WP.
This suggests that, even if a non-referenced approach continues, our decision process need to change, focusing on the nationality of the creative product rather than who might help to pay for or distribute it. But it would be better, cleaner, simpler, and more consistent with the WP-wide approach and with the standards applied to our very best articles, to require direct referencing of statements as to a series's nationality. Where sources conflict, we already have policies and lots of experience to resolve any issues. MapReader ( talk) 13:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
If a series' nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g. being produced solely by American production companies), it should be identified in the opening sentence.– so "dual" or "multi" national productions should not have countries listed in the lede, only single-nation productions should. (This is similar to WP:FILMLEAD on this score.) So, regardless of whether describing Downton as "British-American" is accurate or not, it should not be listed that way in the lede... As per multi-national productions, I don't know that we have a "rule" on it, but in general I think the procedure is to "Follow the money." If a substantial portion of the production funding was put up by American PBS, then you can call it a co-production. But, really, if Downton was going to be produced in the UK with or without PBS's funding, then I'd say it's really a "British" (only) production... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk)
Proposal: The two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of the relevant section of the MoS (from "If a..." onwards) should become a separate paragraph and be replaced with:
"A series's nationality, if singularly defined, should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, and identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced. Editors should be careful not to infer the nationality of a series or production entity where such information is not verifiable by citation from a reliable source." MapReader ( talk) 05:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Proposal moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Proposed MoS change: Nationality MapReader ( talk) 13:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I saw on a web site that a TV station is moving its digital channel. This is happening a lot, according to that site. I was watching a TV station which announced that today is the day to rescan. The process is (sort of) explained at Spectrum reallocation#Repacking (someone did improve that article, which I contributed a lot of content to, but it might need further improvement). There should probably be a standard way of adding these changes to TV stations' articles. What I did on WCSC-TV could probably be improved on.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated KaDee Strickland for a Wikipedia:Featured article review/KaDee Strickland/archive1 as the article has not been properly updated since its promotion as a featured article back in 2005. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on Portable hole. When I started, it was almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. I've made some progress finding sources, but not as much as I'd like. Many entries remain unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are, admittedly, not reliable. There's no doubt that this is a notable concept, having been used in film, cartoons, and literature by many authors. But, good sources are hard to find. I'd appreciate any help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Could I get some other editors watching NCIS (season 15), please? I adjusted the colours [3] using my script, per the whole COLOR discussion, and had an editor ( Jp113040) revert me [4] with the summary of "What do you think am I, stupid or something, you're not the boss of the colors, I AM, you understand me?! I told you, do not mess with my previous color!". This editor's been warned for non-compliant colours and OWN behaviour before, per their talk page. Cheers. -- Alex TW 03:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Would appreciate some input on an issue over at Talk:Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee#Netflix episode order. Quick summary: I was looking at this show on Netflix and went to check the article over here. While looking at the episode list I noticed that its not even close to what Netflix has. The previous 9 seasons were rearranged into 4 seasons (called "collections") and the episodes from the seasons have also been rearranged between those (and not in order). I'm trying to figure out if there is any technical solution to have two lists, as both lists cannot share the same tables, as there is no reader-friendly way of moving from entry to entry by order. -- Gonnym ( talk) 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:WUPV#RfC about content in the Programming section. This is probably something that should have a standardized approach rather than be argued article-by-article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey, all. I've added to the usage of {{ Aired episodes}} with a new template I've made, {{ Template parameter value}}. The latter template pulls the value of a specific parameter in a specific template in a specific article, which, for television articles, removes the requirement of the "onlyinclude" tags in the parent article and the |num={{:Showname}} in the "aired episodes" template.
For example, here and here show the updated usages. You can remove the "onlyinclude" tags and the |num= parameter, and just add |showpage= instead. Not to worry though, the regular |num= still works! It's only an addition. Just an update I thought I'd share, might make life easier for television editors. -- Alex TW 16:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
In January 2018, i submitted some suggestions in the template's talk page. They concern the format of the data table, the citation style and the appearance of the graph (a fixed distance between the bars). Five months later, no changes have been made, so i would like to once again draw your attention to it. -- Radiphus 09:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split?. --
Alex
TW
05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Greetings and felicitations. If an American show on broadcast television reaches a second season (which generally means a count of more than 13 episodes, if not 22), is that the time to split off the episodes into a separate article? If this question has already been addressed, where can I find that answer—in the MOS? Or somewhere else?
(I originally asked the question here.) — DocWatson42 ( talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
If the contributors of this discussion are interested, there is a very similar discussion going on at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split? about the validity of splitting very early, and whether they should be merged again, or left as-is. -- Alex TW 05:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, is there any article precedent for the existence of List of longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV? I have kind of a problem with the user who created it--they've fabricated a lot of citation titles so that they say things like "Sasural Simar Ka' completes 2,000 episodes, thus, becoming second longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV till date" when in fact the reference titles say something much different, ex: "'Sasural Simar Ka' Completes 2,000 Episodes".
The user is also adding this content to articles, ostensibly to make these series sound more important (?). Arbitrary and very specific records/milestones like "seventh longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV and second longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV which is on air" just reads as a form of WP:PUFFERY to me. I mean, there are a lot of qualifiers there, like are there other series that aren't Indian that have run longer on Colors TV? Anyway, I appreciate a contrary opinion if anybody has one. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 15:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Single-season TV series are not supposed to have stand-alone "List of episodes" articles. Yet this one is a WP:FL. (It probably shouldn't be, but that's a separate issue...) So, merge the LoE back to Highlander: The Raven anyway? Or leave it be?... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Thought I'd see if any editors over here would like to help resolve this discussion happening over at the talk page for The Handmaid's Tale here: Talk:The Handmaid's Tale (TV series)#References to Trump and Pence need to be deleted. A few days ago an editor removed this section from the article's Reception section:
There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society following
Donald Trump and
Mike Pence's elections as
President and
Vice President of the United States, respectively.
[1]
[2] A comparison has also been made to the
Salafi/
Wahabbi extremism of
ISIL, under which enslaved women of religious minorities are passed around and utilized as sex objects and vessels to bear new jihadis.
[3]
[4]
[5]
I reverted the user's deletion (which their edit summary explained was done in the interest in making the article "neutral) due to the fact that the sentence was adequately cited and seemed to posses no open political bias in its current composition. Hoping to have this conflict end soon as I try to avoid getting into political discussions here on Wikipedia. Hope to see some input over there! – BoogerD ( talk) 19:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
MOS:US states that the abbreviation style of U.S. is deprecated, and that we should be using US (no full stops). It does also says to "retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it". Should we change it to US in {{ Episode table}} for the viewers parameter? Thoughts? It would match up with UK. -- Alex TW 14:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK" which would be a fairly common occurance in television articles, such as "...airs on NBC in the U.S. and BBC in the UK." I think consistency is best here, both across Wikipedia articles and between US, UK, UAE, etc. in television-related articles -- Whats new? (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
With a few opposing voices, I'd say that there's a pretty solid agreement from the contributing editors to change usages to US, especially for consistency with similar usages (UK, EU, UN, etc.), as well as consistency with outside Methods of Style. I would, of course, be interested in hearing any further opinions. -- Alex TW 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I'll run AWB on usages of {{ Episode table}}, write up a new sentence for the MoS, and ask whereabouts we would request a large list of article renames. -- Alex TW 02:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Gosh. What a lovely club y'all have. Was the invitation to the party announced? Well, be that as it may ... for posterity:
2. In American English, however, it is common to use a full stop/period as an alternative style for certain abbreviations, in particular:
USA or U.S.A.
US or U.S. Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2018.
Chicago style is USA (without periods), but we also accept both US and U.S. Other authoritative style manuals and dictionaries vary in their recommendations. Please see CMOS 10.4 and 10.33 for guidelines and discussion. The Chicago Manual of Sylte Online. The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition, 2017.
Had you sent an invitation other Wikipedians might have brought party favors to the voting booth. Cheers! Pyxis Solitary 20:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. There was no pressing need for this change. You can't pose a question, yourself determine the consensus, and then proceed to change 2760 articles in 4.5 hours. Also, using the AWB tool in this way goes against WP:AWBRULES #2 and #3 - this is clearly controversial and you are not applying the guideline properly, which states to retain usage. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
As it may be relevant to this WikiProject, this is a notice that I've created the template {{ Draft notice}} for ease of access in alerting user and article talk pages of drafts. -- Alex TW 08:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
{{
Draft at}}
title, so I've proposed it be moved there. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC) You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:At the Movies (1982–90 TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Calendar (American TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Addams Family (1973 animated series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Three articles on which I have worked have had the "Television articles with incorrect naming style" category added. I had not heard of that category before, and when I went to the page with that heading, I found no explanation on it or on its talk page.
What constitutes incorrect naming style for a TV show? Eddie Blick ( talk) 12:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, starting to tackle some of these, and some will get a {{
Please see}}
followup here (and at
WT:NCTV) (e.g. see below). --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Update: I think I've gone through and moved/corrected most of the "low-hanging fruit" in the category through the letter "L", opening formal WP:RMs in those cases where I thought it was advisable. I'll try to go through the bottom of the alphabet in the category within the next 24 hours... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections
Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Vikings (TV documentary series). Already the subject of multiple
WP:RMs involving several WP:TV "regulars", I'd like some more opinions on this one before trying to tackle it... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)}