![]() | 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I thought I'd post the link for User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes here - this is a list of all articles that use {{ Episode list}} but not {{ Episode table}}; i.e. they still use the old raw wikicode tables for their episode table headers. If anyone wants to have a go at battling it, go for it. -- Alex TW 04:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There's also Category:Infobox television season articles that use the season name parameter, for articles that use {{ Infobox television season}}, that still use the season_name parameter, instead of the granularity edits that were implemented ages ago where only the season number and show name are required. -- Alex TW 04:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
As posted on the show's talk page yesterday, a trailer was released by History for an upcoming drama produced by Robert Zemeckis with this very title. [1]. With this in mind, I believe a TV series that actually has said title deserves the page more than a show that uses it as an alternate title, so I'm requesting the page be repurposed to reflect as such. I was advised to solicit advice here, probably for proper approval-- I'm Part-Spider ( Would you like to know more?) 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Futon Critic#TFC does not provide links to original sources. An editor is claiming that The Futon Critic cannot(? or should not?) be used as a
Reliable source under WP:TV (e.g.
WP:TVFAQ). --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 16:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across an issue with several pseudo infoboxs templates and a sidebar template.
The pseudo infoboxs are Template:Infobox reality show candidates, Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame which are used in The Apprentice UK articles (example: The Apprentice (UK series ten)), Big Brother articles (example: Big Brother 7 (U.S.)) and probably others. These templates auto-hide the reality participants, their entry/exit date and color-coded and their end result. A few issues with this.
For Template:Big Brother sidebar which is used in Big Brother (U.S. TV series), Big Brother (UK TV series) and other articles there are other issues.
In addition, I remember a discussion (which I couldn't find) about pairs of param names and values. These templates don't use that coding style. Does this matter?
So in summary I'm asking. A. Is this even an issue? and B. If it is, how do we handle this? -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have had discussions with editors in the past over the use of titles (like Dr.), ranks (like Captain or Commander), and honors (like PhD) in the "Cast and characters" section of television series articles. Previously, I had been led to believe that they were to be used in situations involving fictional characters. These editors cited pages such as various Star Trek articles to back up that claim. However, I recently had an anonymous editor ( 142.160.89.97) cite MOS:POSTNOM and MOS:DOCTOR in order to justify the removal of these titles/honors from the "Cast and characters" and episode summary sections of the article Who Is America?. I'm hoping to receive some clarity from some knowledgeable editor here? Do those Manual of Style rules apply to fictional characters? Do numerous pages need to be changed to comply? – BoogerD ( talk) 21:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Smith: an agent who later becomes the directorrather than getting all muddled up with what should take precedence. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Draft:Longest running animated tv show Fanoflionking 14:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, your comments are respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Request for Comment: Star Parivaar Awards. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking for a little input here from the Wikiproject:Television community. I'm trying to avoid engaging in an edit war over the current state of Template:Amazon Video original series. Previously, the streaming service had been split up into three templates: a main one featuring "Amazon Original" programming produced by Amazon Studios, a foreign language one consisting primarily of foreign series acquired by Amazon and listed as "Amazon Exclusives" rather than "Amazon Originals", and a template for children's programming. In the last two months a deletion discussion occurred and the foreign language template was deleted. Today, the information in that template was merged into the main template with some disagreement over how best to accommodate it. Looking for the input of other editors to help figure out what would make the most sense both aesthetically, functionally, and logically. Thanks all, BoogerD ( talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This is less about any editing dispute and more for someone that has better information. I'm trying to see if there is a fundamental difference between the normal Primetime Emmy awards, and the Primetime Creative Arts Emmy awards. The case in point is that for Black Mirror, it won Outstanding Television Movie last year, and nominated for the same this year, but the way the Emmys are scheduling the awards, the Outstanding Television Movie is being presented outside the normal Primetime ceremony , and instead as part of the Creative Arts two-day event. As such, on our accolades table, it looks very weird to see it as a normal Primetime Emmy when it won, and a Creative Arts for this year's nomination.
We technically have the official designation between Primetime and Creative Emmy for this year here, but that seems to be read that all awards are fundamentally equal, and it's just their fluidity between the nights of scheduling that some get put to the Creative Arts ceremonies. I can't seem to find a hard list that affirmed that any category is always a Primetime or a Creative Arts award. -- Masem 23:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I've just proposed a merge of Mark-Francis Vandelli and Louise Thompson (TV personality) into Made in Chelsea. The discussion can be found at Talk:Made in Chelsea#Merger proposal. Many thanks. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 16:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello All,
I'd like to point all whom might possibly be interested to a discussion happening over at the talk page for the new Netflix comedy series All About the Washingtons here: Talk:All About the Washingtons. Myself and three other editors are engaged in a debate over the relevance of including the full of name of characters when mentioned in dialogue rather than in the credits of the series in question. I don't feel compelled to transcribe the contents of this rather long and ongoing discussion but would encourage others interested in the subject to give it a read and consider contributing to the conversation. – BoogerD ( talk) 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles which may be of interest to members of this project— Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others—have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — A L T E R C A R I ✍ 14:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Kia ora, I'm a newbie when it comes to editing TV shows but found myself editing World of Dance (season 2) after reading it and finding some issues with grammar. Turns out that an IP editor from Germany created the article or at least wrote a lot of it and is now getting frustrated with me, so I would appreciate some others stepping in to maybe help? I could be wrong, but from what I've edited and been reverted on, it appears to be s lot of puff/trivia that isn't required in the article and is actually at the moment unsourced. It feels more like a dance Wiki article when I started than a Wikipedia article. I don't want to get into an edit war and now wonder if maybe I was wrong but feel even compared to World of Dance (season 1) it's not correct. Any advice or help would be appreciated. NZFC (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 16#Template:Japanese episode list. The discussion is a proposal to merge {{
Japanese episode list}}, {{
S-Japanese episode list}} and {{
S-Episode list}} into {{
Episode list}}. --
Alex
TW 02:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the recent closing of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 6#Template:Television ratings graph as "no consensus", I think that we really ought to have a discussion about this template and usage. Its usage is continuously reverted against a multitude of articles, but we can't get a consensus to delete. Do we need to form guidelines on its use? -- Alex TW 00:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
They don't really belong on pages with pre existing ratings tables as they don't offer anything substantial to justify being used in this way. When a show is continuously losing viewers you can clearly see this on the ratings table, I don't think a visual aid is needed in that regard. Like you know, see how Designated Survivor started really high but continuously lost viewers. Esuka323 ( talk) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are some things i believe we need to discuss:
That's all for now. I will probably return with more questions and hopefully some answers. - Radiphus 18:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Updated with answers. - Radiphus 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This template can be used as a visual representation for ratings trends of multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons and less than 40 total episodes.That episode count can be changed to whatever we agree on. I have no real pickness on the count, but I think it should be at least over 26-30 to warrant the need to display the data visually. For omitting the table below, for sure for any show with seasons over 18+ episodes. At that point, it's just a bunch of numbers. - Brojam ( talk) 21:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I oppose the blanket removal of ratings tables from the template, as they are quite small and present the information in a different format than episode lists. Strong oppose any season requirement for using the template, as ratings are measured per episode and not per season; an episode requirement may be appropriate if and only if it is kept very low (certainly not 20, let alone 40). Modernponderer ( talk) 04:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I have bundled the citations below the graphs, so please let me know what you think about that. While doing that, i noticed that data provided by BARB for UK series (i.e {{ Broadchurch ratings}}, {{ Luther ratings}}, {{ Spooks ratings}}) are accumulated over a period of 7 and in some cases 28 days, in contrast with Nielsen ratings data for US series which refer only to live plus same day viewership. Should we keep using the graph for UK series? If yes, i believe the heading above the graph should read "U.K. viewers per episode over seven days (millions)". - Radiphus 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Coming back to this, the most recent TFD was closed; the consensus is to list them at their individual pages directly, instead of creating template namespace graphs. This way, it should be easier to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. -- Alex TW 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need a graph on the list of The 100 episodes page? It's sat below five ratings tables and seems rather pointless to me. Esuka323 ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors.
This discussion regards the recent proposal to merge the prose plot summaries from the Game of Thrones season articles to the Game of Thrones episodes article, a Featured List, and the apparent consensus to do with by the support of two other editors. --
Alex
TW 08:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion over the merging of two articles is occurring over at Talk:There's...Johnny!. The main issue of debate at this moment is the use a space after an ellipsis in the title (see There's... Johnny! and There's...Johnny!). I am inquiring to the Wikipedia community as to whether is a policy or some sort of guideline in the Manual of Style that might give some direction on how this situation should be handled. Is there a proper way of using an ellipsis in an article title or sentence? Is one more grammatically correct than the other? If anyone has any insight into this, I would certainly appreciate their response. – BoogerD ( talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there a policy/template on listing viewers per episode of a series. I ask because for example this article List of My Hero Academia episodes includes the USA episode watching numbers and Kantō region rating details in the Summary section. My feeling is that this information is of marginal interest, and if it is to be included, it should probably be in a separate column, not in the Summary. Are there any examples where "episode watching numbers" are included in summaries? Ozflashman ( talk) 09:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Could we please get some more eyes of The King of Queens? There is an anonymous editor there persistently replacing the partially referenced " Syndication" section with an unreferenced, listified, flag heavy version, [1] [2] [3] [4] despite reversions and any requests on his talk page. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, your opinions are needed regarding whether a lengthy section detailing symbols and their explanations from the opening credits of Ozark. I'm a somewhat newer editor to the Ozark article, and by looking at the edit history, the content has generally been deleted as per being trivial. Here's a few examples of it being deleted previously. The newest version of it is even more lengthy and detailed, and the editor who created it, now moved the content to its own article: Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols, which is even more problematic. Please see the talk pages, Talk:Ozark (TV series) and Talk:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols if you wish to share an opinion. Thank you. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Editors familiar with the featured article process may be interested in the nomination of " San Junipero", an episode of anthology series Black Mirror. The nomination can be found here. Thanks! — Bilorv (c) (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
What is "xtreams" inserted here: [5]? Is it something we should use for anything? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 00:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Tardigrade/Archive 1#In_popular_culture about this currently removed section (see history for details). This is a version I'm personally ok with: [6], South Park, Discovery etc. If you have an opinion, please join the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe that including viewership data in episode tables is not appropriate. The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode. Having a column for viewership data in the same table appears to be out of place. We could instead have this data presented in the appropriate "Ratings" section of a season article with ratings tables using {{ Television episode ratings}}, that also provide info on share/rating and a more accurate picture of delayed viewing with DVR ratings. - Radiphus ( talk) 10:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
|Aux4=
) that in 2012 we added a field specifically for viewer data. Currently, 10,671 articles use {{
Episode list}} while only 357 use {{
Television episode ratings}}. How many actually have a ratings section is a bit harder to work out. However, it would be rather silly to even consider removing the Viewers
field as this would remove the only ratings data in thousands of articles.The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode- That's never actually been the case. The episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode and that includes everything that is catered for in {{ Episode list}} including viewer figures. There have been plenty of articles where ratings tables have actually been removed because what was in them was redundant to what was in the episode table.
You don't say, "The episode was titled A, directed by B and written by C. Oh, and did you know that it had D viewers?"- You may not but a lot of people find value in the information. Strictly speaking, all you really need to identify an episode is the title and air date, not writers, directors, production codes and so on. Different readers have different requirements and so we incorporate a lot of information to cater for the needs of different readers. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode, then why are the complete ratings and shares not included there? They are encyclopaedic information about an episode. Why do we not include air dates in other countries? The multitude of people listed in a varying number of occupations in the credits? It's not really a solid reason for the inclusion of one piece of information, when so many more are available but also not included. Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant, and would give an actual reason for such a section, as well as removing the duplication. (Personally, I believe production codes have no place there either, but that's another discussion.) -- Alex TW 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Then we move it back to Aux4, while removing Viewers- I'm sorry Alex but that is probably the most absurd thing that you've ever suggested.
Aux4
is a general field while the entire point of the Viewers
field is to display viewer information. There are thousands of articles that have viewer figures and nothing else. They're always going to need the Viewers
field because the other ratings information likely isn't available any more. We're not going to create ratings tables where we don't have information necessary to populate the tables and we won't be removing viewer information without damn good reason so why move the information from a perfectly valid field? It makes no sense at all.We did it with the over 2000+ articles that needed colour updates- We were compelled to do it for those articles because colour is an accessibility issue. There is no issue that requires us to revise ratings information in articles.
why are the complete ratings and shares not included there?- Like everything else on Wikipedia that is missing, it's because nobody has added it. In some cases it's not available, especially for programs that aired decades before Wikipedia existed.
Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter- There is no requirement that the field be populated, or any ratings information be included at all. It, however, is encyclopaedic information seen to be important by many editors and readers so we provide a venue for it to be included.
means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant- Existence of the field doesn't mean that the rating sections are redundant so removing it wouldn't change anything.
would give an actual reason for such a section- Similarly, lack of a field doesn't justify the creation of a section. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.") that we should not be reporting . We should not be playing Madison Avenue's tedious game, and reporting upteen iterations of "demo" ratings. For a general encyclopedia, "All Viewers" "same day" ratings is sufficient. I don't even think we need to report "share"... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been suggested already, but could we just encourage users to not include viewership information in the episode table if there is already a separate ratings table covering it? And if there is not enough data to fill out a separate ratings table, then they could be encouraged to just use the viewership column in the episode table. That gives editors and option depending on what is available for each article. - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Seen in Archive 27, it seems that this discussion never really got off the ground, and the further advice the user sought was never given. I’m willing to pick up the project. Is this okay?-- Sarcathmo17 ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to hadnle Fokus (Indosiar news program). It's unsourced, at the wrong location, the lead looks like it might be a copyvio and I don't understand the purpose of the "Programme Fokus at Indosiar" section. I've already done some cleanup and the prod notice was removed. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I need all eyes at Splash and Bubbles. We have a user who hates the eel character and his song and keeps removing them from the article. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 02:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
For the air dates of TV shows that (formerly) aired in the United States, there are numerous possible sources – TV Guide, Zap2It, Amazon, The Futon Critic... even EpGuides.
What I'd like to know is – are there any equivalent comprehensive "authoritative" sources for episodes and air dates for TV shows in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, et al., and if so, what are they?! (I took a quick look at the Radio Times website, but it doesn't seem to have the kind of episodes/air dates database that TV Guide's does.)
I'm particularly interested in something like this for Canada, and the UK (but I'd be interested in a source for air dates for any of these countries...). TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like some WP:TV opinions on this one, and whether it meets WP:TVSHOW despite having never aired on television. What concerns me about this article is that there is no info on whether anything more than the pilot was filmed, and no information as to why a "straight-to-series" order was eventually cancelled and not filled/filmed. Without those two pieces of information, I don't think it merits its own article... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, would any interested parties please keep an eye on List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes? There appears to be some article ownership issues going on by an unresponsive editor, who keeps bringing the article out of alignment with MOS.
Side note: I see US air dates listed, but the series is French and those US dates in some cases come years after the debuts. There is also some weirdness in the Series overview, where we're tracking multiple airdates on different networks and there's no context for any of the information. My attempts to discuss with the editor have been met with silence, but I'm hoping that people more familiar with the series and current WP:TV community preferences please take a look. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone here familiar with Pakistani television and can explain to me what "serial" or "drama serial" means in the Pakistani television context? From reading various sources I'm left confused, as some make it seem as they are either drama TV series, telenovela series or a limited 1-season series.
Pakistani dramas doesn't help nor does
Miniseries. The
Hum Awards which give a
Hum Award for Best Drama Serial says in the lead Best Drama Serial is considered the most important of the Hum Awards, as it represents all the directing, acting, music, writing, and other efforts put forth into a drama
. They also have awards for sitcom, soap and televilm, which either means they have no "regular" non-sitcom TV series on their network, or that "serial" in Pakistani television means "TV series" in western television. --
Gonnym (
talk) 08:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Fordham73 and I disagree as to whether Award Theatre#List of movies shown is appropriate or not. Comments? Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Per respective contemporary TV listings in The New York Times, Daily News and TV Guide (New York Metropolitan edition)is not a reference. To the point, I also think the list is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between an original TV series having information about the original episodes it airs vs a (semi-local) TV "show" which aired theatrical films. I couldn't even verify the NYTimes sources to see if they actually talk about the show or just mention it in passing (site is blocked to me). -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Supergirl (TV series)#DVD and Blu-ray releases regarding media release tables, especially regarding combining DVD and Blu-ray regions. This is part of a much wider issue that exists at multiple articles so it would benefit from much wider discussion on the matter. Accordingly, I'm inviting everyone to participate in the discussion. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Another TV pilot that was not picked up to series, and never aired anywhere. Thus, subject does not seem to meet WP:TVSHOW... So, leave the article alone, or take it to WP:AfD?... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We need some opinions on the following: Talk:Emilia Clarke#Lead image. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Can we get some more eyes on the articles for The Witcher, please? We don't create articles for the television series in the mainspace until production has started filming, which is why I moved The Witcher (TV series) to Draft:The Witcher (TV series), but then someone decided to recreate the article at The Witcher (U.S. TV series), and a discussion was started at Talk:The Witcher (U.S. TV series). I have a feeling it may be a problematic issue. Cheers. -- Alex TW 00:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witcher (TV series); contributions are welcome there. -- Alex TW 08:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The main image is being discussed on the article's talk page. The options are the season's key art or the one being used on the article now. -- DrBat ( talk) 20:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Requested move 14 September 2018. This one is getting contentious, so the opinions of more WP:TV regulars would probably be useful here... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 17:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor has taken exception to tagging individual overlength episode summaries with {{ plot}} at Lost in Space (2018 TV series). [7] Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Lost in Space (2018 TV series)#Episode summary lengths. Should we be tagging individual episodes or just the section? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 21:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV/Shows#Need a UK TV expert!!. A UK TV expert is needed to help figure out whether
Gadzooks! (TV programme) and
Gadzooks! It's All Happening are the same TV programme or not! Please comment at the linked-to topic above, if you know! TIA. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Slight emergency:
List of Frontline (PBS) episodes
See the bottom few seasons. They don't render.
I put one of the seasons into a sandbox and it renders fine: User:Anna Frodesiak/Gold sandbox.
Click edit for the whole page, then preview save. There's a red error message.
Is the total page size too big or something? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've just tried to add episode tables to List of Holby City episodes because they were missing for some reason but the later ones aren't showing properly. Does anyone know why they aren't working, please? Thank you. Matt14451 ( talk) 10:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.You can read more at Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. -- Alex TW 10:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
There's been a lot of use of WP:NFF to not create articles in the mainspace for upcoming films that have not begun principle photography, and we typically use an identical practice for television series that have not begun principle photography (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witcher (TV series)), but we don't have a supporting guideline. Would it be worth creating WP:NFTV (Notability for Future Television Series) as either a copyedit of NFF, or rewording NFF to include television series? Or even/also rewording WP:NTV to include such information too? Other discussions where this has been mentioned can be found at:
-- Alex TW 03:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I used to defend updating the number of episodes every week (dating back to this discussion), but let's face it, with regards to ongoing seasons (such as List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures episodes) readers will already know how many episodes have aired without having to look at "No. of episodes" and thus updating the number every week (before the season has ended) is redundant. It can also be misleading because sometimes editors forget to update the number (27 episodes of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures have aired in the US yet according to the infobox, only 24 have aired) and therefore just saying "Ongoing" and leaving the episode count to the reader is better than confusing anyone by saying this many episodes have aired even though this many episodes have actually aired. Plus I think it'll be easier to just update the episode titles/summaries every week for seasons that are still running instead of simultaneously updating that and episode count (and only add the episode count after the season has finished).
As to ongoing series, such as The Simpsons (where listing the episode count on the series page without having to painstakingly go to the episode lists is appropriate), I think saying "639+ episodes" would be better than just saying "639 episodes". That way, the reader will know that more than 639 episodes may have actually aired instead of being misled into thinking only 639 episodes have aired. Hell, "640+ episodes" (only updating every 10 episodes) might even be more appropriate when the 30th season premieres than doing 641+/642+/643+ every time a new episode airs.
What I'm suggesting is that we use "Ongoing" for all ongoing television seasons and "[number of episodes]+" for all ongoing series. What does everyone else think? — Mythdon 23:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
As of}}
. Maybe there is even an option to add a TV attribute (tv=true, tv_season_over=true) so it would go into a specific TV maintenance category for easier fixing. --
Gonnym (
talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the guideline concerning edits like this where the subject of the article has appeared on a chat show, often to plug their latest offering? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Dancing on Ice Series 5 -(Preview Show & Programme 5) – ITV 1 – (2010) – Herself (archive footage)and
23rd National Television Awards - ITV 1 - January 23 - Guest (As part of Eastenders Cast) Nominated for Best Serial Drama. This from the description seems also non-notable -
Strictly Come Dancing Series 15 - BBC1 - Week 6 (Halloween Week) October 28 & 29 2017 - Guest/Studio audience. Side note, that section does not source any appearance and uses pseudo-headers, both of which should be fixed. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Only notable appearances should be included.This would rule out talk show appearances, "unnamed" (e.g. Guard #3) roles, roles as "extras", uncredited appearances (unless sourced), and non-notable short film roles (which is nearly all of them!). FTR, I've toyed with the idea of creating a WP:NOTIMDb essay about this (I have a draft of this in my userspace) – I just never got around to finishing it... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay here are the archive links
without it, you'll just have this same conversation over and over and over and over again ad nauseam- 4 discussions in ~15 months. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This is referring to shows that are generally dramas that have a long ongoing plot and little isolated story, such as The Walking Dead, Westworld, or Better Call Saul. I'm sure there's more examples, but this is to contrast from shows like Star Trek TNG/DS9 or XFiles, where there is long-term character development but each episode has a isolated story from this larger narrative.
In looking at the standalone character articles for these shows (I'm looking at Better Call Saul right now), I'm finding that the traditional way that characters are covered, trying to give even at a higher level, a season-by-season breakdown, causes a lot of duplication between characters and the individual episode plots (which these shows often have enough sourcing to support). For BCS, for example, there are longer-term plot lines two or more characters share that. (Kim and Jimmy's roles in the series are nearly inseparable at this point).
Given that we already have episode plots, that these character articles should have far less biographical/plot summary stuff and try to stay as high level as possible, hitting broad key points but trying to avoid the level of detail we'd use in an episode article. For example, presently our article on Saul Goodman (Jimmy) is far too short even for both series, but even though I've tried to trim it down, Kim Wexler feels too long. I think we need to advice people to write in much broader strokes and not worry about hitting every "plot" point but instead core changes that follow the character through the show's history. -- Masem ( t) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Why this is under The Weakest Link (UK game show), not Weakest Link (UK game show)? On the BBC site there is "Weakest Link" same as in logo. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The above template initially looked like what is displayed in this version. I disagreed with the layout, believing there to be too much whitespace, and that we shouldn't be forcing the template to display empty groups by using the nonbreakable-space-hack. Based on this, I updated the template to what is displayed in this version, but was reverted (initially by an IP, now by someone imitating my name). Thoughts and ideas? -- Alex TW 02:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up, made a new template for articles where the episodes of a series have been split among several articles; examples can be seen at List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–15), List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes (seasons 1–20), List of Frontline (PBS) episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20). Previously, the notices used raw HTML in the articles, as can be seen here, occasionally with the yellow background here, all with slightly different formatting and grammar here and there. Just makes it easier now.
Also a heads up on a related topic, there's two requested moves at Talk:List of Casualty episodes*#Requested move 30 September 2018 and Talk:List of Holby City episodes*#Requested move 30 September 2018, concerning the title for these two split-episode articles, to match the similar articles mentioned above. -- Alex TW 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Two part question - I'm trying to find sources for "story" writing credit for Empire Strikes Back, but having a hard time with that. Are there any sites that keep such information that I'm able to cite? Is citing the film allowed for production roles? -- Gonnym ( talk) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Frontline (U.S. TV program)#Requested move 3 October 2018. Several WP:TV'ers have already participated in the related discussion at
Talk:List of Frontline (PBS) episodes#Requested move 25 September 2018, so this is just a heads up about this new
WP:RM. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 02:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This is in regard to preceded_by
, followed_by
, and related
. It's not clear in the
template instructions, but the way I've always understood it is that the first two are used for actual sequels, while the last one is used for spinoffs. However, this is an area where disputes can commonly arise because people don't understand how the parameters work, and it's somewhat understandable, given the ambiguity in the instructions. I think it would just be better if we had related
for both sequels and spinoffs and got rid of the other two.
Amaury (
talk |
contribs) 18:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
preceded_by
and followed_by
parameters of {{
Infobox television}} should be phased out/merged into the related
parameter. Such a move will likely set in motion a new set of problems (namely, IP editors adding everything under the sun to the related
parameter...), but I've already seen editors do some weird, inexplicable things with the preceded_by
and followed_by
parameters anyway, so this is nothing new... But simplifying all of the "related" programming together into just the related
parameter is, IMO, an improvement over the current situation where there is so much confusion, with some commensurate editor conflicts being generated as a result, as to when to "correctly" use preceded_by
, followed_by
and related
. Better to just put all related programs, whether they be "prequels", "sequels", or "spinoffs" or "revivals", under the related
parameter, and be done with it. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 22:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
|preceded_by=
and |followed_by=
, and stuck to related
. I've barely ever used the parameters myself, but I can easily see how it would be a hassle. We may need to revise the description for it in the documentation for
Template:Infobox television, to make sure that editors know it is for directly related shows; i.e. for Doctor Who, we would only list the spin-offs, not the documentary series as well. (Unfortunately though, I can see this not happening. Nothing ever passes for consensus at WT:TV.) --
Alex
TW 01:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
related
parameter... But I could possibly be talked into it. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 04:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
As an FYI, if this goes through, I'll be leaving it to someone who is experienced in working with templates. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The Simpsons (season 30), the article on the currently airing season of The Simpsons, has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons (season 30). -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about Fire and Rain (song)#Updated versions, which is based entirely on an spot the singer did on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and quotes him extensively in a matter-of-fact manner, even though anyone who knows anything about that show and others like it knows that oftentimes the more outlandish "revelations" the guests make are actually just meant as jokes, and everyone in the audience is in on it.
We, however, should not be assuming our readers are in on the joke, and even if they were we probably shouldn't be reciting jokes for thr sake of entertaining our readers. Thoughts?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
In particular, List of Darkwing Duck characters#Other characters is loaded with characters that have only appeared in 1-2 episodes, which I think is problematic for a page that's over 150,000 bytes long (largely due to the amount of plot summaries that are pretty much episode-specific).
I think the biggest problem with listing guest stars (for lack of better word) is with article size, because oftentimes lists of characters are loaded with intricate amounts of plot detail. I'm not saying to get rid of these lists, but perhaps care should be given when applying them, considering that even lists that don't include guest appearances (such List of Pokémon anime characters) are pretty large as is.
If anything, I think a separate list for minor characters is the direction to go in most cases where listing guest stars is involved, particularly for long running series like List of Seinfeld minor characters.
I'm interested to hear everyone else's suggestions on how to handle these.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This IP vandalized a lot in TV-related articles vandalizing dates and others. Someone needs to check and rollback these edits. -- Denniss ( talk) 10:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started a merge discussion for this article.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Heartbeat (UK TV series) has the following separate "series" articles, in lieu of a proper List of Episodes article (note: List of Heartbeat episodes is a redirect to Heartbeat (series 1–5), which isn't right either...):
The first issue is that, even if the List of Episodes article needs to be split, splitting that into four separate articles is excessive – a "split" of two LoE articles would be sufficient. Second, these are misnamed under WP:NCTV, so they'd need to be moved if they aren't merged. But they should be merged
I'm going to ping wbm1058 to this discussion, as they seem knowledgeable about the techinical issues involved in these, and may be able to figure out how to merge all 4 of these articles back to List of Heartbeat episodes. Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
ShortSummary
fields that really shouldn't be there (guest starts, first and final appearances etc). And Soooo many
WP:REDNOT violations. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 06:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So, there's this discussion, and rather un-decided argument going on regarding what should feature in the Short Sum for an episode of a non-fiction reality show, and I just wonder what is the right thing to add in and the wrong thing to add. Should you detail out the results of something that was a contest, if it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (i.e. a Series/Season article of the associated programme the episode is a part of)? Should you detail out what was done, if like say the episode details the performance of two competing teams in a contest and the mistakes, good ideas and so forth, were done? I truly wish to know to find a way to settle the argument peacefully. GUtt01 ( talk) 22:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
"Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be." IOW, these kinds of tables basically violate WP:OR, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:NOTDIARY. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't give two hoots about who "wins" any particular episode of any reality show- don't go on the articles for reality shows then. Who wins and loses is a key part of the "plot" of the competition show and should be included. This isn't BuzzFeed, we're not shouldn't be saying "You won't BELIEVE what you'll see if you watch the episode." Also, does the bit about how results shouldn't be included (in-universe, OR) apply to other forms of competition? The Sports WikiProject should probably be informed.
"Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research": I am not sure which bit of my proposed description is in universe and original research, can you please provide an example? OZOO (t) (c) 15:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately, the girls' team lose due to significant fines after arriving late at the airport and failing to find all items, and Sarah is fired due to her aggressive attitude, which caused Lord Sugar to doubt her capability of progressing in the process. So the current one looks better, but it should mention who was fired. Regarding the chart, the problem I have with these is that a lot of time they don't really add any value, as they are just posted, not discussed in anyway and never have any references to them. Then you also have the fact that they end up being half empty The Apprentice (UK series thirteen)#Performance Chart. The smaller one in the "infobox" is much better in that it lists the important information - who got fired in what week (though that one has its own issues). -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
When all return to the boardroom, the totaling of costs and fines reveals that one team's lack of co-ordination and negotiating skills was costly, resulting in the firing of Sara- I used "firing" as that is the term used by the series right? It could be "elimination" as well, it doesn't really matter. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Should this article exist?: List of Tamil soap operas present airing. Seems like it's just an extension of List of Tamil soap operas. Both were created by Arnav19, an editor I had major competence issues with. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So, now that {{ Japanese episode list}} has been merged with {{ Episode list}}, for the very reason I proposed the merge, we now have a number of accessibility and formatting issues to fix in usages of the Japanese episode list. The following tracking categories have all become repopulated with usages of the Japanese episode list:
I plan to go through these to fix them all, but if anyone wants to give a hand, it'd be greatly appreciated. I typically use a number of my scripts to empty these categories. Cheers. -- Alex TW 02:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Quick question, should the TV Project template ({{WikiProject Television}}) be added to YouTube TV show article talk pages? Govvy ( talk) 10:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Annie Wersching#consistency for access dates and archive dates.
Joeyconnick (
talk) 06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It is my opinion that these typesof articles – "List of programs broadcast by [network]", "List of [network] series", and "List of [network] original films" – violate WP:NOTAGUIDE, particularly the former two, and while I don't think a consensus could ever be formed to outright delete all of them, I think we should heavily limit what we list there. In the case of "List of programs broadcast by [network]" and "List of [network] series," there is really no different other than the latter having upcoming series highlighted in a yellow and therefore the two are virtually duplicate content. Why some networks have these two pages rather than just the former is beyond me.
My opinion is that we just have only one page for each network, with that page listing series and original films. Furthermore, we should restrict the pages and only list current and upcoming series. There is really no need to list former programming and all that other stuff, especially when a lot of networks will rerun former series for a while, then stop reruns, then bring them back for a little while, and so forth. It just makes everything messy. Additionally, we would just list everything current or upcoming in a single section for each respective category (animation, live-action, etc.), as there is really no need to further separate by whether something is acquired or not or whether something is scripted or not, and stuff like that can just be mentioned in the notes. For films, it would be slightly different, in that we would just list all of a network's original films, upcoming or former.
Depending on what a network has, the general layout would look something like this
[Lead] – This is a list of current and upcoming television series and films that have premiered or will premiere on [network] in the United States.
The content under each section below would be a table that looks like this:
Title | Premiere date | Current season | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
123 | February 8, 2014 | 4 | Renewed for a fifth season on June 30, 2018. |
456 | January 1, 2015 | 3 | Canceled after three seasons on June 2, 2018. |
789 | November 24, 2017 | 2 | Acquired series. |
[Section 1] – Current series
[Sub-Section 1] – Animation: Includes all cartoons and preschool CGI that are currently airing.
[Sub-Section 2] – Live-action: Includes all scripted and unscripted live-action series that are currently airing.
[Sub-Section 3] – Game shows: Includes all game shows that are currently airing.
[Sub-Section 4] – Specials: Includes all specials that have aired. (Halloween, Christmas, etc. specials not from a series, but rather things like cast parties and the like. Also annual specials like MTV's music awards.)
[Section 2] – Upcoming series
[Sub-Section 1] – Animation: Includes all cartoons and preschool CGI that will be airing.
[Sub-Section 2] – Live-action: Includes all scripted and unscripted live-action series that will be airing.
[Sub-Section 3] – Game shows: Includes all game shows that will be airing.
[Sub-Section 4] – Specials: Includes all specials that will be airing.
[Section 3] – Current films: Includes all films that have premiered.
[Section 4] – Upcoming films: Includes all films that will premiere.
Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Certain editors have been removing show lists from channel articles entirely – including upcoming, current, and former shows listed on the actual channel pages, not even separate "List of" pages which presumably need more justification – citing WP:NOTAGUIDE (and edit warring against anyone who dares to restore them, with admins entirely supporting this for some reason by blocking only one side of the dispute).
Furthermore, there is a long-standing "consensus" (among the tiny group of editors that seems to WP:OWN this project) that non-English networks shouldn't be listed on show pages. I've always thought this wasn't just a clutter thing, but editors actively trying to prevent this information from appearing on Wikipedia at all. Now my suspicions seem to have been proven correct: you are proposing to go the other way and remove the lists of shows from "non-first-run" networks (which in practice means mostly non-English networks, for very obvious reasons).
Yet every single time the "List of" articles (which, again, require actual notability!) go to AfD they are kept, except in very special cases. If I didn't know better, I'd say there is an incredible abuse of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS going on here, on multiple levels...
Enough is enough. I would start an RfC right now, but the problem is there is almost always near-zero participation. Can someone suggest where and how to do this so there is a decent number of opinions in the discussion for once, preferably from outside the project as well? Modernponderer ( talk) 16:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Input, counter-arguments appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Viewers Television Awards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
So within the past week, I started a couple of sections ( #How should the listing of guest stars be handled? (Fictional characters) and #List of Darkwing Duck characters#Merge proposal) talking about fixing the disaster that is List of Darkwing Duck characters. Today, I've started up a draft. The draft version excludes sections such as "Other characters", "other heroes" and "other villains", since most of these were one-off instances anyway. I also removed the 90 something references to the TV episodes since it was making the prose unreadable (almost the whole article is sourced to the show anyway). The draft could definitely use more work, but what I've done is a starting point for now, seeing as removing the 'other' character sections and the mountain load of references are the only major changes I've made thus far. Hopefully with some work on the draft, the disaster that is this character list can be cleaned up.— Mythdon ( talk/ contribs) 08:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, WP:TV regulars: would you advise merging List of Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom episodes back to Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom – yes or no? If "yes", do you feel strongly that it should be merged back, or are you just "theoretically in favor" of a merge?... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:The King of Queens characters and Category:The King of Queens episodes have been nominated for deletion. Comments at the CfD discussions would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 17#Template:S-Japanese episode list and Template:S-Episode list. This discussion is to request the deletion of the deprecated templates {{
S-Japanese episode list}} and {{
S-Episode list}}; these are old sortable versions of {{
Japanese episode list}} and {{
Episode list}}. --
Alex
TW 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Smallville#Links in sub-headings regarding using links in sub-headings of nav-boxes.
Matt14451 (
talk) 14:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I recently decided to add {{ Television ratings graph}} to the article Doctor Who (season 1), as I figured it was an effective way to visualise the season's viewing figures without listing each number in prose (see here for my usage). However, since my addition was reverted, I figured I should discuss it here. What are your thoughts on using {{ Television ratings graph}} in a season article such as this, where 42 episodes span across eight different serials? – Rhain ☔ 11:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think graphs are much better for showing ratings, either within a single season or across multiple seasons. Numbers are harder to read because you need to scan across all the numbers carefully, while you can see from a single glance in a graph what the trajectory of the season ratings is. A graph should not replace a table though since some people might want to see the exact numbers. Hzh ( talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the way ratings are shown on Wikipedia needs to be evolved in some way. For example why do we need 18-49 demo numbers for premium cable networks like HBO, Starz, Showtime? They don't have commercials and they certainly don't care about this demographic. They have always renewed based on Live+SD viewers(Including +3, +7) and streaming. Showtime have been heavy with their PR releases about their new comedy Kidding and have put extra emphasis on how well it performs on non linear platforms. I don't really care about adding the 18-49 demo for show pages on these networks, I'm just saying they're not that important. Esuka323 ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, can anyone link to the policy/MOS/whatever that says references shouldn't be included for episodes that have aired, only for future episodes? I keep getting reverted on The Apprentice (UK series fourteen). Thanks. Matt14451 ( talk) 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see column sources used very much on TV pages, and people generally remove the Rtitle source when an episode airs. I see this on virtually every broadcast television and most cable tv pages. I speak as someone who has edited on probably over 100 tv pages this year. Esuka323 ( talk) 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Posting this to WT:TV, to get more eyes on it... This should be at Ewing family (Dallas), correct? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Can a few other editors please keep an eye on Doctor Doctor (season 1) and Doctor Doctor (season 3)? We have an IP, that, without any specific reason, is changing the articles' uses of {{ Infobox television season}} to raw Wikicode (see [13] [14]). Cheers. -- Alex TW 01:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The "article" X Factor (Russian TV series) is basically a Disambiguation page, right? So it should be tagged with {{ Disambiguation}}, yes?... Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
So the editor from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 27#Fokus (Indosiar news program) has continued with same style of editing. Liputan 6 was reverted back from draft to main namespace, Kompas (tv program) was recreated (as Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program) was protected from being moved back, he just added a pseudo redirect instead), as were new articles such as INews (news program) (notice presenter blue links are all non-en.wiki links) and Sergap (TV program). Can't even tell what is notable or not from the spam of list of presenters and segments in each one. Pinging previous discussion participents @ AussieLegend, IJBall, AlexTheWhovian, and PaleoNeonate: and also @ Amakuru: who page protected Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program). -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm quite sure I know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway – List of Perry Mason cast members should be nuked as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, yes?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Over at Legends of Tomorrow there is an ongoing debate on whether Matt Ryan is considered a main character or not. Intial news reports indicated that he would be a main cast member for the 4th season. But in the two episodes that have airred, he's credited as "Special Appearance by". JDDJS ( talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Rome episode}} has been nominated for deletion again. The discussion may be found here for anyone interested in participating. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It has been suggested a broad consensus be reached for splitting episodes to their own article at Talk:Taskmaster (TV series). Matt14451 ( talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey all. Just thought I'd post these links here, list of articles that need updating to meet the standard practices of our WikiProject, in case anyone wants to help out with emptying them at any point
|episode_list = [[SHOW (season 1)|''SHOW'' (season 1)]]<br>[[List of SHOW episodes|List of ''SHOW'' episodes]]
, rather than the simpler format of |season_list = SHOW (season 1) |episode_list = List of SHOW episodes
.|season_name = SHOW (season 1)
and manually linking |prev_season=
and |next_season=
, rather than the simpler format of |show_name = SHOW |season_number = 1
and allowing the previous/next seasons to be generated automatically.-- Alex TW 07:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Recently, two similar categories were discussed at CfD with opposite outcomes:
Both only had a "list of" episodes and an article on one of its episodes.
For musician categories, a bottom-up approach has been enacted in which an artist's songs and albums are placed in a "Foo songs" and "Foo albums", regardless of how many songs and albums the artist has released (considered an exception to WP:SMALLCAT as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"), and the general "Category:Foo" scheme is discouraged unless otherwise warranted (see Category:The Beatles, Category:Britney Spears). For television series categories, it appears a top-down approach is the accepted norm and I would like to get clarification on that here. This can then lead to a consistent categorization scheme for how and when seasons, episodes, and characters are categorized for any TV series.
For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).
Thank you for your time. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, SMALLCAT aim is to avoid small categories, especially those that aren't likely to grow.- That clearly applies to The King of Queens and even many TV series that are still airing. TV categories should be allowed to grow naturally as most other category trees do. New cats shouldn't be forced on us as it doesn't help. If a series has a category and there are 5 episode articles then consideration should be given to creating an episode cat. The same applies for character categories. Common sense dictates that if all the articles in a category fit comfortably on one page then there's not a lot to be gained by splitting them into tiny categories just because you can. The TV project has had this issue with episode lists being split out far too early. Now we're more in tune with WP:SIZESPLIT. I completely agree with the deletion of Category:The Good Place episodes. There are only two episode articles and there is potential for more but it's completely unnecessary to create a cat at this time. Whether or not episode articles will be created depends on number of factors. If you look at {{ The Big Bang Theory}} you'll see that there are episodes for seasons 1-8 but nothing for 9-12. There are far more for season 5 than any other season because one editor got keen and decided to create a whole pile of season 5 articles. This is not uncommon with TV programs. You can see something similar at {{ NCIS television}}. By contrast, Two and a Half Men, which was a popular program, has articles for only 6 out of 262 episodes. When creating TV categories it's best to create the categories when they're needed, not just because they can be, as there is no consistency with how articles are created.
For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters that exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).
Taskmaster is a panelshow with 51 episodes. After this discussion, List of Taskmaster episodes was recently merged to Taskmaster (TV series), based on the main page's readable prose size and a blatant misreading of WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages. Is this following policy? If so, we need to start merging basically everything in Category:Lists of British comedy television series episodes. If not, the merge needs to be reversed. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I need help to decide something. There is a tv channel called Bangla TV, based on uk. Recently their owner started another tv channel in Bangladesh with same name. Both tv channel have same logo but their program are different. Should i create another article or should i include information about new channel in the existing articles? -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 14:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please comment on the notability of actress Joan Kelley Walker. Thanks! -- Thinker78 ( talk) 23:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Friday Night Football (AFL)#Requested move 8 November 2018. There are a number of Australian sports articles that are currently incorrectly/ambiguously disambiguated, so it would be helpful if we could come up with a consensus naming/disambiguation scheme for these articles. This particular RM is the starting test case, and right now it's too lightly attended to provide a solution. So more opinions added to the discussion would be good. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 05:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:One to One (TV series)#Requested move 19 October 2018. Issue is "TV series" vs. "TV program" vs. "talk show". Show appears to be similar to the Irish version of
60 Minutes. Need other opinions to break to current "non consensus" result. TIA. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF that would affect pages under this project, regarding the application of WP:ASOF to RT scores in articles. Thoughts from those watching this talk page would be most welcome. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone recommend a database that is acceptable to cite in a Wikipedia article (since IMDb isn't) that includes credits from Television shows dating back to 1989? I'm looking for acting credits from 2 episodes of The Wonder Years and music dept credits from an episode of Once and Again. Thank you Artaria195 ( talk) 21:52, 20 November 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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I thought I'd post the link for User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes here - this is a list of all articles that use {{ Episode list}} but not {{ Episode table}}; i.e. they still use the old raw wikicode tables for their episode table headers. If anyone wants to have a go at battling it, go for it. -- Alex TW 04:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
There's also Category:Infobox television season articles that use the season name parameter, for articles that use {{ Infobox television season}}, that still use the season_name parameter, instead of the granularity edits that were implemented ages ago where only the season number and show name are required. -- Alex TW 04:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
As posted on the show's talk page yesterday, a trailer was released by History for an upcoming drama produced by Robert Zemeckis with this very title. [1]. With this in mind, I believe a TV series that actually has said title deserves the page more than a show that uses it as an alternate title, so I'm requesting the page be repurposed to reflect as such. I was advised to solicit advice here, probably for proper approval-- I'm Part-Spider ( Would you like to know more?) 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
References
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Futon Critic#TFC does not provide links to original sources. An editor is claiming that The Futon Critic cannot(? or should not?) be used as a
Reliable source under WP:TV (e.g.
WP:TVFAQ). --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 16:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I came across an issue with several pseudo infoboxs templates and a sidebar template.
The pseudo infoboxs are Template:Infobox reality show candidates, Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame which are used in The Apprentice UK articles (example: The Apprentice (UK series ten)), Big Brother articles (example: Big Brother 7 (U.S.)) and probably others. These templates auto-hide the reality participants, their entry/exit date and color-coded and their end result. A few issues with this.
For Template:Big Brother sidebar which is used in Big Brother (U.S. TV series), Big Brother (UK TV series) and other articles there are other issues.
In addition, I remember a discussion (which I couldn't find) about pairs of param names and values. These templates don't use that coding style. Does this matter?
So in summary I'm asking. A. Is this even an issue? and B. If it is, how do we handle this? -- Gonnym ( talk) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I have had discussions with editors in the past over the use of titles (like Dr.), ranks (like Captain or Commander), and honors (like PhD) in the "Cast and characters" section of television series articles. Previously, I had been led to believe that they were to be used in situations involving fictional characters. These editors cited pages such as various Star Trek articles to back up that claim. However, I recently had an anonymous editor ( 142.160.89.97) cite MOS:POSTNOM and MOS:DOCTOR in order to justify the removal of these titles/honors from the "Cast and characters" and episode summary sections of the article Who Is America?. I'm hoping to receive some clarity from some knowledgeable editor here? Do those Manual of Style rules apply to fictional characters? Do numerous pages need to be changed to comply? – BoogerD ( talk) 21:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Smith: an agent who later becomes the directorrather than getting all muddled up with what should take precedence. - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Can anyone help with Draft:Longest running animated tv show Fanoflionking 14:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, your comments are respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Request for Comment: Star Parivaar Awards. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking for a little input here from the Wikiproject:Television community. I'm trying to avoid engaging in an edit war over the current state of Template:Amazon Video original series. Previously, the streaming service had been split up into three templates: a main one featuring "Amazon Original" programming produced by Amazon Studios, a foreign language one consisting primarily of foreign series acquired by Amazon and listed as "Amazon Exclusives" rather than "Amazon Originals", and a template for children's programming. In the last two months a deletion discussion occurred and the foreign language template was deleted. Today, the information in that template was merged into the main template with some disagreement over how best to accommodate it. Looking for the input of other editors to help figure out what would make the most sense both aesthetically, functionally, and logically. Thanks all, BoogerD ( talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This is less about any editing dispute and more for someone that has better information. I'm trying to see if there is a fundamental difference between the normal Primetime Emmy awards, and the Primetime Creative Arts Emmy awards. The case in point is that for Black Mirror, it won Outstanding Television Movie last year, and nominated for the same this year, but the way the Emmys are scheduling the awards, the Outstanding Television Movie is being presented outside the normal Primetime ceremony , and instead as part of the Creative Arts two-day event. As such, on our accolades table, it looks very weird to see it as a normal Primetime Emmy when it won, and a Creative Arts for this year's nomination.
We technically have the official designation between Primetime and Creative Emmy for this year here, but that seems to be read that all awards are fundamentally equal, and it's just their fluidity between the nights of scheduling that some get put to the Creative Arts ceremonies. I can't seem to find a hard list that affirmed that any category is always a Primetime or a Creative Arts award. -- Masem 23:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I've just proposed a merge of Mark-Francis Vandelli and Louise Thompson (TV personality) into Made in Chelsea. The discussion can be found at Talk:Made in Chelsea#Merger proposal. Many thanks. Senegambianamestudy ( talk) 16:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello All,
I'd like to point all whom might possibly be interested to a discussion happening over at the talk page for the new Netflix comedy series All About the Washingtons here: Talk:All About the Washingtons. Myself and three other editors are engaged in a debate over the relevance of including the full of name of characters when mentioned in dialogue rather than in the credits of the series in question. I don't feel compelled to transcribe the contents of this rather long and ongoing discussion but would encourage others interested in the subject to give it a read and consider contributing to the conversation. – BoogerD ( talk) 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles which may be of interest to members of this project— Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others—have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — A L T E R C A R I ✍ 14:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Kia ora, I'm a newbie when it comes to editing TV shows but found myself editing World of Dance (season 2) after reading it and finding some issues with grammar. Turns out that an IP editor from Germany created the article or at least wrote a lot of it and is now getting frustrated with me, so I would appreciate some others stepping in to maybe help? I could be wrong, but from what I've edited and been reverted on, it appears to be s lot of puff/trivia that isn't required in the article and is actually at the moment unsourced. It feels more like a dance Wiki article when I started than a Wikipedia article. I don't want to get into an edit war and now wonder if maybe I was wrong but feel even compared to World of Dance (season 1) it's not correct. Any advice or help would be appreciated. NZFC (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 16#Template:Japanese episode list. The discussion is a proposal to merge {{
Japanese episode list}}, {{
S-Japanese episode list}} and {{
S-Episode list}} into {{
Episode list}}. --
Alex
TW 02:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the recent closing of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 6#Template:Television ratings graph as "no consensus", I think that we really ought to have a discussion about this template and usage. Its usage is continuously reverted against a multitude of articles, but we can't get a consensus to delete. Do we need to form guidelines on its use? -- Alex TW 00:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
They don't really belong on pages with pre existing ratings tables as they don't offer anything substantial to justify being used in this way. When a show is continuously losing viewers you can clearly see this on the ratings table, I don't think a visual aid is needed in that regard. Like you know, see how Designated Survivor started really high but continuously lost viewers. Esuka323 ( talk) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are some things i believe we need to discuss:
That's all for now. I will probably return with more questions and hopefully some answers. - Radiphus 18:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Updated with answers. - Radiphus 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This template can be used as a visual representation for ratings trends of multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons and less than 40 total episodes.That episode count can be changed to whatever we agree on. I have no real pickness on the count, but I think it should be at least over 26-30 to warrant the need to display the data visually. For omitting the table below, for sure for any show with seasons over 18+ episodes. At that point, it's just a bunch of numbers. - Brojam ( talk) 21:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I oppose the blanket removal of ratings tables from the template, as they are quite small and present the information in a different format than episode lists. Strong oppose any season requirement for using the template, as ratings are measured per episode and not per season; an episode requirement may be appropriate if and only if it is kept very low (certainly not 20, let alone 40). Modernponderer ( talk) 04:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I have bundled the citations below the graphs, so please let me know what you think about that. While doing that, i noticed that data provided by BARB for UK series (i.e {{ Broadchurch ratings}}, {{ Luther ratings}}, {{ Spooks ratings}}) are accumulated over a period of 7 and in some cases 28 days, in contrast with Nielsen ratings data for US series which refer only to live plus same day viewership. Should we keep using the graph for UK series? If yes, i believe the heading above the graph should read "U.K. viewers per episode over seven days (millions)". - Radiphus 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Coming back to this, the most recent TFD was closed; the consensus is to list them at their individual pages directly, instead of creating template namespace graphs. This way, it should be easier to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. -- Alex TW 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Do we really need a graph on the list of The 100 episodes page? It's sat below five ratings tables and seems rather pointless to me. Esuka323 ( talk) 18:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors.
This discussion regards the recent proposal to merge the prose plot summaries from the Game of Thrones season articles to the Game of Thrones episodes article, a Featured List, and the apparent consensus to do with by the support of two other editors. --
Alex
TW 08:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
A discussion over the merging of two articles is occurring over at Talk:There's...Johnny!. The main issue of debate at this moment is the use a space after an ellipsis in the title (see There's... Johnny! and There's...Johnny!). I am inquiring to the Wikipedia community as to whether is a policy or some sort of guideline in the Manual of Style that might give some direction on how this situation should be handled. Is there a proper way of using an ellipsis in an article title or sentence? Is one more grammatically correct than the other? If anyone has any insight into this, I would certainly appreciate their response. – BoogerD ( talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there a policy/template on listing viewers per episode of a series. I ask because for example this article List of My Hero Academia episodes includes the USA episode watching numbers and Kantō region rating details in the Summary section. My feeling is that this information is of marginal interest, and if it is to be included, it should probably be in a separate column, not in the Summary. Are there any examples where "episode watching numbers" are included in summaries? Ozflashman ( talk) 09:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Could we please get some more eyes of The King of Queens? There is an anonymous editor there persistently replacing the partially referenced " Syndication" section with an unreferenced, listified, flag heavy version, [1] [2] [3] [4] despite reversions and any requests on his talk page. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 05:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, your opinions are needed regarding whether a lengthy section detailing symbols and their explanations from the opening credits of Ozark. I'm a somewhat newer editor to the Ozark article, and by looking at the edit history, the content has generally been deleted as per being trivial. Here's a few examples of it being deleted previously. The newest version of it is even more lengthy and detailed, and the editor who created it, now moved the content to its own article: Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols, which is even more problematic. Please see the talk pages, Talk:Ozark (TV series) and Talk:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols if you wish to share an opinion. Thank you. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Editors familiar with the featured article process may be interested in the nomination of " San Junipero", an episode of anthology series Black Mirror. The nomination can be found here. Thanks! — Bilorv (c) (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
What is "xtreams" inserted here: [5]? Is it something we should use for anything? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 00:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Tardigrade/Archive 1#In_popular_culture about this currently removed section (see history for details). This is a version I'm personally ok with: [6], South Park, Discovery etc. If you have an opinion, please join the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe that including viewership data in episode tables is not appropriate. The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode. Having a column for viewership data in the same table appears to be out of place. We could instead have this data presented in the appropriate "Ratings" section of a season article with ratings tables using {{ Television episode ratings}}, that also provide info on share/rating and a more accurate picture of delayed viewing with DVR ratings. - Radiphus ( talk) 10:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
|Aux4=
) that in 2012 we added a field specifically for viewer data. Currently, 10,671 articles use {{
Episode list}} while only 357 use {{
Television episode ratings}}. How many actually have a ratings section is a bit harder to work out. However, it would be rather silly to even consider removing the Viewers
field as this would remove the only ratings data in thousands of articles.The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode- That's never actually been the case. The episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode and that includes everything that is catered for in {{ Episode list}} including viewer figures. There have been plenty of articles where ratings tables have actually been removed because what was in them was redundant to what was in the episode table.
You don't say, "The episode was titled A, directed by B and written by C. Oh, and did you know that it had D viewers?"- You may not but a lot of people find value in the information. Strictly speaking, all you really need to identify an episode is the title and air date, not writers, directors, production codes and so on. Different readers have different requirements and so we incorporate a lot of information to cater for the needs of different readers. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode, then why are the complete ratings and shares not included there? They are encyclopaedic information about an episode. Why do we not include air dates in other countries? The multitude of people listed in a varying number of occupations in the credits? It's not really a solid reason for the inclusion of one piece of information, when so many more are available but also not included. Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant, and would give an actual reason for such a section, as well as removing the duplication. (Personally, I believe production codes have no place there either, but that's another discussion.) -- Alex TW 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Then we move it back to Aux4, while removing Viewers- I'm sorry Alex but that is probably the most absurd thing that you've ever suggested.
Aux4
is a general field while the entire point of the Viewers
field is to display viewer information. There are thousands of articles that have viewer figures and nothing else. They're always going to need the Viewers
field because the other ratings information likely isn't available any more. We're not going to create ratings tables where we don't have information necessary to populate the tables and we won't be removing viewer information without damn good reason so why move the information from a perfectly valid field? It makes no sense at all.We did it with the over 2000+ articles that needed colour updates- We were compelled to do it for those articles because colour is an accessibility issue. There is no issue that requires us to revise ratings information in articles.
why are the complete ratings and shares not included there?- Like everything else on Wikipedia that is missing, it's because nobody has added it. In some cases it's not available, especially for programs that aired decades before Wikipedia existed.
Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter- There is no requirement that the field be populated, or any ratings information be included at all. It, however, is encyclopaedic information seen to be important by many editors and readers so we provide a venue for it to be included.
means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant- Existence of the field doesn't mean that the rating sections are redundant so removing it wouldn't change anything.
would give an actual reason for such a section- Similarly, lack of a field doesn't justify the creation of a section. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.") that we should not be reporting . We should not be playing Madison Avenue's tedious game, and reporting upteen iterations of "demo" ratings. For a general encyclopedia, "All Viewers" "same day" ratings is sufficient. I don't even think we need to report "share"... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been suggested already, but could we just encourage users to not include viewership information in the episode table if there is already a separate ratings table covering it? And if there is not enough data to fill out a separate ratings table, then they could be encouraged to just use the viewership column in the episode table. That gives editors and option depending on what is available for each article. - adamstom97 ( talk) 07:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Seen in Archive 27, it seems that this discussion never really got off the ground, and the further advice the user sought was never given. I’m willing to pick up the project. Is this okay?-- Sarcathmo17 ( talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to hadnle Fokus (Indosiar news program). It's unsourced, at the wrong location, the lead looks like it might be a copyvio and I don't understand the purpose of the "Programme Fokus at Indosiar" section. I've already done some cleanup and the prod notice was removed. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I need all eyes at Splash and Bubbles. We have a user who hates the eel character and his song and keeps removing them from the article. — FilmandTVFan28 ( talk) 02:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
For the air dates of TV shows that (formerly) aired in the United States, there are numerous possible sources – TV Guide, Zap2It, Amazon, The Futon Critic... even EpGuides.
What I'd like to know is – are there any equivalent comprehensive "authoritative" sources for episodes and air dates for TV shows in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, et al., and if so, what are they?! (I took a quick look at the Radio Times website, but it doesn't seem to have the kind of episodes/air dates database that TV Guide's does.)
I'm particularly interested in something like this for Canada, and the UK (but I'd be interested in a source for air dates for any of these countries...). TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I'd like some WP:TV opinions on this one, and whether it meets WP:TVSHOW despite having never aired on television. What concerns me about this article is that there is no info on whether anything more than the pilot was filmed, and no information as to why a "straight-to-series" order was eventually cancelled and not filled/filmed. Without those two pieces of information, I don't think it merits its own article... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, would any interested parties please keep an eye on List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes? There appears to be some article ownership issues going on by an unresponsive editor, who keeps bringing the article out of alignment with MOS.
Side note: I see US air dates listed, but the series is French and those US dates in some cases come years after the debuts. There is also some weirdness in the Series overview, where we're tracking multiple airdates on different networks and there's no context for any of the information. My attempts to discuss with the editor have been met with silence, but I'm hoping that people more familiar with the series and current WP:TV community preferences please take a look. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Is anyone here familiar with Pakistani television and can explain to me what "serial" or "drama serial" means in the Pakistani television context? From reading various sources I'm left confused, as some make it seem as they are either drama TV series, telenovela series or a limited 1-season series.
Pakistani dramas doesn't help nor does
Miniseries. The
Hum Awards which give a
Hum Award for Best Drama Serial says in the lead Best Drama Serial is considered the most important of the Hum Awards, as it represents all the directing, acting, music, writing, and other efforts put forth into a drama
. They also have awards for sitcom, soap and televilm, which either means they have no "regular" non-sitcom TV series on their network, or that "serial" in Pakistani television means "TV series" in western television. --
Gonnym (
talk) 08:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Fordham73 and I disagree as to whether Award Theatre#List of movies shown is appropriate or not. Comments? Clarityfiend ( talk) 04:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Per respective contemporary TV listings in The New York Times, Daily News and TV Guide (New York Metropolitan edition)is not a reference. To the point, I also think the list is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between an original TV series having information about the original episodes it airs vs a (semi-local) TV "show" which aired theatrical films. I couldn't even verify the NYTimes sources to see if they actually talk about the show or just mention it in passing (site is blocked to me). -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk:Supergirl (TV series)#DVD and Blu-ray releases regarding media release tables, especially regarding combining DVD and Blu-ray regions. This is part of a much wider issue that exists at multiple articles so it would benefit from much wider discussion on the matter. Accordingly, I'm inviting everyone to participate in the discussion. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Another TV pilot that was not picked up to series, and never aired anywhere. Thus, subject does not seem to meet WP:TVSHOW... So, leave the article alone, or take it to WP:AfD?... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
We need some opinions on the following: Talk:Emilia Clarke#Lead image. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Can we get some more eyes on the articles for The Witcher, please? We don't create articles for the television series in the mainspace until production has started filming, which is why I moved The Witcher (TV series) to Draft:The Witcher (TV series), but then someone decided to recreate the article at The Witcher (U.S. TV series), and a discussion was started at Talk:The Witcher (U.S. TV series). I have a feeling it may be a problematic issue. Cheers. -- Alex TW 00:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witcher (TV series); contributions are welcome there. -- Alex TW 08:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The main image is being discussed on the article's talk page. The options are the season's key art or the one being used on the article now. -- DrBat ( talk) 20:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Requested move 14 September 2018. This one is getting contentious, so the opinions of more WP:TV regulars would probably be useful here... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 17:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
An editor has taken exception to tagging individual overlength episode summaries with {{ plot}} at Lost in Space (2018 TV series). [7] Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Lost in Space (2018 TV series)#Episode summary lengths. Should we be tagging individual episodes or just the section? -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 21:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV/Shows#Need a UK TV expert!!. A UK TV expert is needed to help figure out whether
Gadzooks! (TV programme) and
Gadzooks! It's All Happening are the same TV programme or not! Please comment at the linked-to topic above, if you know! TIA. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Slight emergency:
List of Frontline (PBS) episodes
See the bottom few seasons. They don't render.
I put one of the seasons into a sandbox and it renders fine: User:Anna Frodesiak/Gold sandbox.
Click edit for the whole page, then preview save. There's a red error message.
Is the total page size too big or something? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I've just tried to add episode tables to List of Holby City episodes because they were missing for some reason but the later ones aren't showing properly. Does anyone know why they aren't working, please? Thank you. Matt14451 ( talk) 10:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.You can read more at Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. -- Alex TW 10:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
There's been a lot of use of WP:NFF to not create articles in the mainspace for upcoming films that have not begun principle photography, and we typically use an identical practice for television series that have not begun principle photography (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witcher (TV series)), but we don't have a supporting guideline. Would it be worth creating WP:NFTV (Notability for Future Television Series) as either a copyedit of NFF, or rewording NFF to include television series? Or even/also rewording WP:NTV to include such information too? Other discussions where this has been mentioned can be found at:
-- Alex TW 03:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I used to defend updating the number of episodes every week (dating back to this discussion), but let's face it, with regards to ongoing seasons (such as List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures episodes) readers will already know how many episodes have aired without having to look at "No. of episodes" and thus updating the number every week (before the season has ended) is redundant. It can also be misleading because sometimes editors forget to update the number (27 episodes of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures have aired in the US yet according to the infobox, only 24 have aired) and therefore just saying "Ongoing" and leaving the episode count to the reader is better than confusing anyone by saying this many episodes have aired even though this many episodes have actually aired. Plus I think it'll be easier to just update the episode titles/summaries every week for seasons that are still running instead of simultaneously updating that and episode count (and only add the episode count after the season has finished).
As to ongoing series, such as The Simpsons (where listing the episode count on the series page without having to painstakingly go to the episode lists is appropriate), I think saying "639+ episodes" would be better than just saying "639 episodes". That way, the reader will know that more than 639 episodes may have actually aired instead of being misled into thinking only 639 episodes have aired. Hell, "640+ episodes" (only updating every 10 episodes) might even be more appropriate when the 30th season premieres than doing 641+/642+/643+ every time a new episode airs.
What I'm suggesting is that we use "Ongoing" for all ongoing television seasons and "[number of episodes]+" for all ongoing series. What does everyone else think? — Mythdon 23:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
{{
As of}}
. Maybe there is even an option to add a TV attribute (tv=true, tv_season_over=true) so it would go into a specific TV maintenance category for easier fixing. --
Gonnym (
talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
What is the guideline concerning edits like this where the subject of the article has appeared on a chat show, often to plug their latest offering? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Dancing on Ice Series 5 -(Preview Show & Programme 5) – ITV 1 – (2010) – Herself (archive footage)and
23rd National Television Awards - ITV 1 - January 23 - Guest (As part of Eastenders Cast) Nominated for Best Serial Drama. This from the description seems also non-notable -
Strictly Come Dancing Series 15 - BBC1 - Week 6 (Halloween Week) October 28 & 29 2017 - Guest/Studio audience. Side note, that section does not source any appearance and uses pseudo-headers, both of which should be fixed. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Only notable appearances should be included.This would rule out talk show appearances, "unnamed" (e.g. Guard #3) roles, roles as "extras", uncredited appearances (unless sourced), and non-notable short film roles (which is nearly all of them!). FTR, I've toyed with the idea of creating a WP:NOTIMDb essay about this (I have a draft of this in my userspace) – I just never got around to finishing it... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay here are the archive links
without it, you'll just have this same conversation over and over and over and over again ad nauseam- 4 discussions in ~15 months. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This is referring to shows that are generally dramas that have a long ongoing plot and little isolated story, such as The Walking Dead, Westworld, or Better Call Saul. I'm sure there's more examples, but this is to contrast from shows like Star Trek TNG/DS9 or XFiles, where there is long-term character development but each episode has a isolated story from this larger narrative.
In looking at the standalone character articles for these shows (I'm looking at Better Call Saul right now), I'm finding that the traditional way that characters are covered, trying to give even at a higher level, a season-by-season breakdown, causes a lot of duplication between characters and the individual episode plots (which these shows often have enough sourcing to support). For BCS, for example, there are longer-term plot lines two or more characters share that. (Kim and Jimmy's roles in the series are nearly inseparable at this point).
Given that we already have episode plots, that these character articles should have far less biographical/plot summary stuff and try to stay as high level as possible, hitting broad key points but trying to avoid the level of detail we'd use in an episode article. For example, presently our article on Saul Goodman (Jimmy) is far too short even for both series, but even though I've tried to trim it down, Kim Wexler feels too long. I think we need to advice people to write in much broader strokes and not worry about hitting every "plot" point but instead core changes that follow the character through the show's history. -- Masem ( t) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Why this is under The Weakest Link (UK game show), not Weakest Link (UK game show)? On the BBC site there is "Weakest Link" same as in logo. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The above template initially looked like what is displayed in this version. I disagreed with the layout, believing there to be too much whitespace, and that we shouldn't be forcing the template to display empty groups by using the nonbreakable-space-hack. Based on this, I updated the template to what is displayed in this version, but was reverted (initially by an IP, now by someone imitating my name). Thoughts and ideas? -- Alex TW 02:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up, made a new template for articles where the episodes of a series have been split among several articles; examples can be seen at List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–15), List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes (seasons 1–20), List of Frontline (PBS) episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20). Previously, the notices used raw HTML in the articles, as can be seen here, occasionally with the yellow background here, all with slightly different formatting and grammar here and there. Just makes it easier now.
Also a heads up on a related topic, there's two requested moves at Talk:List of Casualty episodes*#Requested move 30 September 2018 and Talk:List of Holby City episodes*#Requested move 30 September 2018, concerning the title for these two split-episode articles, to match the similar articles mentioned above. -- Alex TW 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Two part question - I'm trying to find sources for "story" writing credit for Empire Strikes Back, but having a hard time with that. Are there any sites that keep such information that I'm able to cite? Is citing the film allowed for production roles? -- Gonnym ( talk) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Frontline (U.S. TV program)#Requested move 3 October 2018. Several WP:TV'ers have already participated in the related discussion at
Talk:List of Frontline (PBS) episodes#Requested move 25 September 2018, so this is just a heads up about this new
WP:RM. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 02:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This is in regard to preceded_by
, followed_by
, and related
. It's not clear in the
template instructions, but the way I've always understood it is that the first two are used for actual sequels, while the last one is used for spinoffs. However, this is an area where disputes can commonly arise because people don't understand how the parameters work, and it's somewhat understandable, given the ambiguity in the instructions. I think it would just be better if we had related
for both sequels and spinoffs and got rid of the other two.
Amaury (
talk |
contribs) 18:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
preceded_by
and followed_by
parameters of {{
Infobox television}} should be phased out/merged into the related
parameter. Such a move will likely set in motion a new set of problems (namely, IP editors adding everything under the sun to the related
parameter...), but I've already seen editors do some weird, inexplicable things with the preceded_by
and followed_by
parameters anyway, so this is nothing new... But simplifying all of the "related" programming together into just the related
parameter is, IMO, an improvement over the current situation where there is so much confusion, with some commensurate editor conflicts being generated as a result, as to when to "correctly" use preceded_by
, followed_by
and related
. Better to just put all related programs, whether they be "prequels", "sequels", or "spinoffs" or "revivals", under the related
parameter, and be done with it. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 22:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
|preceded_by=
and |followed_by=
, and stuck to related
. I've barely ever used the parameters myself, but I can easily see how it would be a hassle. We may need to revise the description for it in the documentation for
Template:Infobox television, to make sure that editors know it is for directly related shows; i.e. for Doctor Who, we would only list the spin-offs, not the documentary series as well. (Unfortunately though, I can see this not happening. Nothing ever passes for consensus at WT:TV.) --
Alex
TW 01:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
related
parameter... But I could possibly be talked into it. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 04:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
As an FYI, if this goes through, I'll be leaving it to someone who is experienced in working with templates. Amaury ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The Simpsons (season 30), the article on the currently airing season of The Simpsons, has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons (season 30). -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 18:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about Fire and Rain (song)#Updated versions, which is based entirely on an spot the singer did on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and quotes him extensively in a matter-of-fact manner, even though anyone who knows anything about that show and others like it knows that oftentimes the more outlandish "revelations" the guests make are actually just meant as jokes, and everyone in the audience is in on it.
We, however, should not be assuming our readers are in on the joke, and even if they were we probably shouldn't be reciting jokes for thr sake of entertaining our readers. Thoughts?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
In particular, List of Darkwing Duck characters#Other characters is loaded with characters that have only appeared in 1-2 episodes, which I think is problematic for a page that's over 150,000 bytes long (largely due to the amount of plot summaries that are pretty much episode-specific).
I think the biggest problem with listing guest stars (for lack of better word) is with article size, because oftentimes lists of characters are loaded with intricate amounts of plot detail. I'm not saying to get rid of these lists, but perhaps care should be given when applying them, considering that even lists that don't include guest appearances (such List of Pokémon anime characters) are pretty large as is.
If anything, I think a separate list for minor characters is the direction to go in most cases where listing guest stars is involved, particularly for long running series like List of Seinfeld minor characters.
I'm interested to hear everyone else's suggestions on how to handle these.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This IP vandalized a lot in TV-related articles vandalizing dates and others. Someone needs to check and rollback these edits. -- Denniss ( talk) 10:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I've started a merge discussion for this article.— Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Heartbeat (UK TV series) has the following separate "series" articles, in lieu of a proper List of Episodes article (note: List of Heartbeat episodes is a redirect to Heartbeat (series 1–5), which isn't right either...):
The first issue is that, even if the List of Episodes article needs to be split, splitting that into four separate articles is excessive – a "split" of two LoE articles would be sufficient. Second, these are misnamed under WP:NCTV, so they'd need to be moved if they aren't merged. But they should be merged
I'm going to ping wbm1058 to this discussion, as they seem knowledgeable about the techinical issues involved in these, and may be able to figure out how to merge all 4 of these articles back to List of Heartbeat episodes. Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
ShortSummary
fields that really shouldn't be there (guest starts, first and final appearances etc). And Soooo many
WP:REDNOT violations. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 06:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So, there's this discussion, and rather un-decided argument going on regarding what should feature in the Short Sum for an episode of a non-fiction reality show, and I just wonder what is the right thing to add in and the wrong thing to add. Should you detail out the results of something that was a contest, if it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (i.e. a Series/Season article of the associated programme the episode is a part of)? Should you detail out what was done, if like say the episode details the performance of two competing teams in a contest and the mistakes, good ideas and so forth, were done? I truly wish to know to find a way to settle the argument peacefully. GUtt01 ( talk) 22:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
"Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be." IOW, these kinds of tables basically violate WP:OR, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:NOTDIARY. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't give two hoots about who "wins" any particular episode of any reality show- don't go on the articles for reality shows then. Who wins and loses is a key part of the "plot" of the competition show and should be included. This isn't BuzzFeed, we're not shouldn't be saying "You won't BELIEVE what you'll see if you watch the episode." Also, does the bit about how results shouldn't be included (in-universe, OR) apply to other forms of competition? The Sports WikiProject should probably be informed.
"Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research": I am not sure which bit of my proposed description is in universe and original research, can you please provide an example? OZOO (t) (c) 15:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Ultimately, the girls' team lose due to significant fines after arriving late at the airport and failing to find all items, and Sarah is fired due to her aggressive attitude, which caused Lord Sugar to doubt her capability of progressing in the process. So the current one looks better, but it should mention who was fired. Regarding the chart, the problem I have with these is that a lot of time they don't really add any value, as they are just posted, not discussed in anyway and never have any references to them. Then you also have the fact that they end up being half empty The Apprentice (UK series thirteen)#Performance Chart. The smaller one in the "infobox" is much better in that it lists the important information - who got fired in what week (though that one has its own issues). -- Gonnym ( talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
When all return to the boardroom, the totaling of costs and fines reveals that one team's lack of co-ordination and negotiating skills was costly, resulting in the firing of Sara- I used "firing" as that is the term used by the series right? It could be "elimination" as well, it doesn't really matter. -- Gonnym ( talk) 09:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Should this article exist?: List of Tamil soap operas present airing. Seems like it's just an extension of List of Tamil soap operas. Both were created by Arnav19, an editor I had major competence issues with. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
So, now that {{ Japanese episode list}} has been merged with {{ Episode list}}, for the very reason I proposed the merge, we now have a number of accessibility and formatting issues to fix in usages of the Japanese episode list. The following tracking categories have all become repopulated with usages of the Japanese episode list:
I plan to go through these to fix them all, but if anyone wants to give a hand, it'd be greatly appreciated. I typically use a number of my scripts to empty these categories. Cheers. -- Alex TW 02:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Quick question, should the TV Project template ({{WikiProject Television}}) be added to YouTube TV show article talk pages? Govvy ( talk) 10:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Annie Wersching#consistency for access dates and archive dates.
Joeyconnick (
talk) 06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It is my opinion that these typesof articles – "List of programs broadcast by [network]", "List of [network] series", and "List of [network] original films" – violate WP:NOTAGUIDE, particularly the former two, and while I don't think a consensus could ever be formed to outright delete all of them, I think we should heavily limit what we list there. In the case of "List of programs broadcast by [network]" and "List of [network] series," there is really no different other than the latter having upcoming series highlighted in a yellow and therefore the two are virtually duplicate content. Why some networks have these two pages rather than just the former is beyond me.
My opinion is that we just have only one page for each network, with that page listing series and original films. Furthermore, we should restrict the pages and only list current and upcoming series. There is really no need to list former programming and all that other stuff, especially when a lot of networks will rerun former series for a while, then stop reruns, then bring them back for a little while, and so forth. It just makes everything messy. Additionally, we would just list everything current or upcoming in a single section for each respective category (animation, live-action, etc.), as there is really no need to further separate by whether something is acquired or not or whether something is scripted or not, and stuff like that can just be mentioned in the notes. For films, it would be slightly different, in that we would just list all of a network's original films, upcoming or former.
Depending on what a network has, the general layout would look something like this
[Lead] – This is a list of current and upcoming television series and films that have premiered or will premiere on [network] in the United States.
The content under each section below would be a table that looks like this:
Title | Premiere date | Current season | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
123 | February 8, 2014 | 4 | Renewed for a fifth season on June 30, 2018. |
456 | January 1, 2015 | 3 | Canceled after three seasons on June 2, 2018. |
789 | November 24, 2017 | 2 | Acquired series. |
[Section 1] – Current series
[Sub-Section 1] – Animation: Includes all cartoons and preschool CGI that are currently airing.
[Sub-Section 2] – Live-action: Includes all scripted and unscripted live-action series that are currently airing.
[Sub-Section 3] – Game shows: Includes all game shows that are currently airing.
[Sub-Section 4] – Specials: Includes all specials that have aired. (Halloween, Christmas, etc. specials not from a series, but rather things like cast parties and the like. Also annual specials like MTV's music awards.)
[Section 2] – Upcoming series
[Sub-Section 1] – Animation: Includes all cartoons and preschool CGI that will be airing.
[Sub-Section 2] – Live-action: Includes all scripted and unscripted live-action series that will be airing.
[Sub-Section 3] – Game shows: Includes all game shows that will be airing.
[Sub-Section 4] – Specials: Includes all specials that will be airing.
[Section 3] – Current films: Includes all films that have premiered.
[Section 4] – Upcoming films: Includes all films that will premiere.
Amaury ( talk | contribs) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Certain editors have been removing show lists from channel articles entirely – including upcoming, current, and former shows listed on the actual channel pages, not even separate "List of" pages which presumably need more justification – citing WP:NOTAGUIDE (and edit warring against anyone who dares to restore them, with admins entirely supporting this for some reason by blocking only one side of the dispute).
Furthermore, there is a long-standing "consensus" (among the tiny group of editors that seems to WP:OWN this project) that non-English networks shouldn't be listed on show pages. I've always thought this wasn't just a clutter thing, but editors actively trying to prevent this information from appearing on Wikipedia at all. Now my suspicions seem to have been proven correct: you are proposing to go the other way and remove the lists of shows from "non-first-run" networks (which in practice means mostly non-English networks, for very obvious reasons).
Yet every single time the "List of" articles (which, again, require actual notability!) go to AfD they are kept, except in very special cases. If I didn't know better, I'd say there is an incredible abuse of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS going on here, on multiple levels...
Enough is enough. I would start an RfC right now, but the problem is there is almost always near-zero participation. Can someone suggest where and how to do this so there is a decent number of opinions in the discussion for once, preferably from outside the project as well? Modernponderer ( talk) 16:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Input, counter-arguments appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Viewers Television Awards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
So within the past week, I started a couple of sections ( #How should the listing of guest stars be handled? (Fictional characters) and #List of Darkwing Duck characters#Merge proposal) talking about fixing the disaster that is List of Darkwing Duck characters. Today, I've started up a draft. The draft version excludes sections such as "Other characters", "other heroes" and "other villains", since most of these were one-off instances anyway. I also removed the 90 something references to the TV episodes since it was making the prose unreadable (almost the whole article is sourced to the show anyway). The draft could definitely use more work, but what I've done is a starting point for now, seeing as removing the 'other' character sections and the mountain load of references are the only major changes I've made thus far. Hopefully with some work on the draft, the disaster that is this character list can be cleaned up.— Mythdon ( talk/ contribs) 08:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, WP:TV regulars: would you advise merging List of Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom episodes back to Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom – yes or no? If "yes", do you feel strongly that it should be merged back, or are you just "theoretically in favor" of a merge?... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Category:The King of Queens characters and Category:The King of Queens episodes have been nominated for deletion. Comments at the CfD discussions would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 17#Template:S-Japanese episode list and Template:S-Episode list. This discussion is to request the deletion of the deprecated templates {{
S-Japanese episode list}} and {{
S-Episode list}}; these are old sortable versions of {{
Japanese episode list}} and {{
Episode list}}. --
Alex
TW 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Smallville#Links in sub-headings regarding using links in sub-headings of nav-boxes.
Matt14451 (
talk) 14:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I recently decided to add {{ Television ratings graph}} to the article Doctor Who (season 1), as I figured it was an effective way to visualise the season's viewing figures without listing each number in prose (see here for my usage). However, since my addition was reverted, I figured I should discuss it here. What are your thoughts on using {{ Television ratings graph}} in a season article such as this, where 42 episodes span across eight different serials? – Rhain ☔ 11:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think graphs are much better for showing ratings, either within a single season or across multiple seasons. Numbers are harder to read because you need to scan across all the numbers carefully, while you can see from a single glance in a graph what the trajectory of the season ratings is. A graph should not replace a table though since some people might want to see the exact numbers. Hzh ( talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the way ratings are shown on Wikipedia needs to be evolved in some way. For example why do we need 18-49 demo numbers for premium cable networks like HBO, Starz, Showtime? They don't have commercials and they certainly don't care about this demographic. They have always renewed based on Live+SD viewers(Including +3, +7) and streaming. Showtime have been heavy with their PR releases about their new comedy Kidding and have put extra emphasis on how well it performs on non linear platforms. I don't really care about adding the 18-49 demo for show pages on these networks, I'm just saying they're not that important. Esuka323 ( talk) 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, can anyone link to the policy/MOS/whatever that says references shouldn't be included for episodes that have aired, only for future episodes? I keep getting reverted on The Apprentice (UK series fourteen). Thanks. Matt14451 ( talk) 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see column sources used very much on TV pages, and people generally remove the Rtitle source when an episode airs. I see this on virtually every broadcast television and most cable tv pages. I speak as someone who has edited on probably over 100 tv pages this year. Esuka323 ( talk) 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Posting this to WT:TV, to get more eyes on it... This should be at Ewing family (Dallas), correct? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Can a few other editors please keep an eye on Doctor Doctor (season 1) and Doctor Doctor (season 3)? We have an IP, that, without any specific reason, is changing the articles' uses of {{ Infobox television season}} to raw Wikicode (see [13] [14]). Cheers. -- Alex TW 01:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The "article" X Factor (Russian TV series) is basically a Disambiguation page, right? So it should be tagged with {{ Disambiguation}}, yes?... Thanks in advance. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
So the editor from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 27#Fokus (Indosiar news program) has continued with same style of editing. Liputan 6 was reverted back from draft to main namespace, Kompas (tv program) was recreated (as Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program) was protected from being moved back, he just added a pseudo redirect instead), as were new articles such as INews (news program) (notice presenter blue links are all non-en.wiki links) and Sergap (TV program). Can't even tell what is notable or not from the spam of list of presenters and segments in each one. Pinging previous discussion participents @ AussieLegend, IJBall, AlexTheWhovian, and PaleoNeonate: and also @ Amakuru: who page protected Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program). -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm quite sure I know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway – List of Perry Mason cast members should be nuked as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, yes?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Over at Legends of Tomorrow there is an ongoing debate on whether Matt Ryan is considered a main character or not. Intial news reports indicated that he would be a main cast member for the 4th season. But in the two episodes that have airred, he's credited as "Special Appearance by". JDDJS ( talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
{{ Infobox Rome episode}} has been nominated for deletion again. The discussion may be found here for anyone interested in participating. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It has been suggested a broad consensus be reached for splitting episodes to their own article at Talk:Taskmaster (TV series). Matt14451 ( talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey all. Just thought I'd post these links here, list of articles that need updating to meet the standard practices of our WikiProject, in case anyone wants to help out with emptying them at any point
|episode_list = [[SHOW (season 1)|''SHOW'' (season 1)]]<br>[[List of SHOW episodes|List of ''SHOW'' episodes]]
, rather than the simpler format of |season_list = SHOW (season 1) |episode_list = List of SHOW episodes
.|season_name = SHOW (season 1)
and manually linking |prev_season=
and |next_season=
, rather than the simpler format of |show_name = SHOW |season_number = 1
and allowing the previous/next seasons to be generated automatically.-- Alex TW 07:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Recently, two similar categories were discussed at CfD with opposite outcomes:
Both only had a "list of" episodes and an article on one of its episodes.
For musician categories, a bottom-up approach has been enacted in which an artist's songs and albums are placed in a "Foo songs" and "Foo albums", regardless of how many songs and albums the artist has released (considered an exception to WP:SMALLCAT as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"), and the general "Category:Foo" scheme is discouraged unless otherwise warranted (see Category:The Beatles, Category:Britney Spears). For television series categories, it appears a top-down approach is the accepted norm and I would like to get clarification on that here. This can then lead to a consistent categorization scheme for how and when seasons, episodes, and characters are categorized for any TV series.
For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).
Thank you for your time. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, SMALLCAT aim is to avoid small categories, especially those that aren't likely to grow.- That clearly applies to The King of Queens and even many TV series that are still airing. TV categories should be allowed to grow naturally as most other category trees do. New cats shouldn't be forced on us as it doesn't help. If a series has a category and there are 5 episode articles then consideration should be given to creating an episode cat. The same applies for character categories. Common sense dictates that if all the articles in a category fit comfortably on one page then there's not a lot to be gained by splitting them into tiny categories just because you can. The TV project has had this issue with episode lists being split out far too early. Now we're more in tune with WP:SIZESPLIT. I completely agree with the deletion of Category:The Good Place episodes. There are only two episode articles and there is potential for more but it's completely unnecessary to create a cat at this time. Whether or not episode articles will be created depends on number of factors. If you look at {{ The Big Bang Theory}} you'll see that there are episodes for seasons 1-8 but nothing for 9-12. There are far more for season 5 than any other season because one editor got keen and decided to create a whole pile of season 5 articles. This is not uncommon with TV programs. You can see something similar at {{ NCIS television}}. By contrast, Two and a Half Men, which was a popular program, has articles for only 6 out of 262 episodes. When creating TV categories it's best to create the categories when they're needed, not just because they can be, as there is no consistency with how articles are created.
For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters that exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).
Taskmaster is a panelshow with 51 episodes. After this discussion, List of Taskmaster episodes was recently merged to Taskmaster (TV series), based on the main page's readable prose size and a blatant misreading of WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages. Is this following policy? If so, we need to start merging basically everything in Category:Lists of British comedy television series episodes. If not, the merge needs to be reversed. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I need help to decide something. There is a tv channel called Bangla TV, based on uk. Recently their owner started another tv channel in Bangladesh with same name. Both tv channel have same logo but their program are different. Should i create another article or should i include information about new channel in the existing articles? -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 14:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Please comment on the notability of actress Joan Kelley Walker. Thanks! -- Thinker78 ( talk) 23:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
FYI. postdlf ( talk) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Friday Night Football (AFL)#Requested move 8 November 2018. There are a number of Australian sports articles that are currently incorrectly/ambiguously disambiguated, so it would be helpful if we could come up with a consensus naming/disambiguation scheme for these articles. This particular RM is the starting test case, and right now it's too lightly attended to provide a solution. So more opinions added to the discussion would be good. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 05:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:One to One (TV series)#Requested move 19 October 2018. Issue is "TV series" vs. "TV program" vs. "talk show". Show appears to be similar to the Irish version of
60 Minutes. Need other opinions to break to current "non consensus" result. TIA. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF that would affect pages under this project, regarding the application of WP:ASOF to RT scores in articles. Thoughts from those watching this talk page would be most welcome. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone recommend a database that is acceptable to cite in a Wikipedia article (since IMDb isn't) that includes credits from Television shows dating back to 1989? I'm looking for acting credits from 2 episodes of The Wonder Years and music dept credits from an episode of Once and Again. Thank you Artaria195 ( talk) 21:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)