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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
If a character looks like an animal but isn't that animal, is it appropriate to use "-like"? For example "rabbit-like" for a character who looks like a rabbit without being a rabbit. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:91EF:58A5:7AF9:DD23 ( talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This series has four character lists. I've proposed merging one of them into List of The Sopranos characters. The series only needs a single list, so it seems like some minor characters will need to be pruned. Doing it one at a time would be best due to their length. If anyone familiar with the series would be available to do it, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, should the merge either be supported or simply recieve no comments for a month, I guess I'll just give it a shot and hope I don't cut anything important. TTN ( talk) 23:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing here to hear others' opinions on this. Recently, Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3) was outright rejected and is not allowed to be in the mainspace until it begins airing, according to the reviewers. They say it is not notable until such time (despite the multiple independent reliable sources covering it). However, I believe the Draft conforms to WP:NTV, WP:TOOSOON, and other guidelines. There has been extensive talk/argument/discussion here, here, and one of the reviewers believes (and apparently others AFC reviewers) that upcoming TV show seasons are not notable until they air. However, I believe this goes against years of precedent in there being an article as long as there is independent reliable sources, etc. The editor has even created a section regarding this on the WP:NTV talk page. I know my writing may come out harsh sometimes (I wouldn't characterize it as whining as they have done. I'm not even a fan of the show. I don't even watch it!), but that's only because this was so unexpected. I have been active around television show articles for a while now (you might've seen me), but this is the first time I have seen a situation like this. Thanks, hope to hear your thoughts. Heartfox ( talk) 07:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to post the full thing because there is a lot to say and it's probably better if it's just read through- a user is currently very persistent that an article for a recently announced series must be created and must not be a redirect to a section on another article. The series in question is The Masked Dancer, a spin-off of Fox's The Masked Singer. Here is the press release on it released this past week.
I've expressed many examples of Wikipedia policies and essays ( WP:WITHIN, WP:TVSHOW, WP:TOOSOON) as well as examples of other series that have a similar situation ( Kamp Koral and The Bachelor: Listen to Your Heart), but the user seems to continue believing that those don't matter and that The Masked Dancer must be created and must not be a redirect.
I really don't want this discussion to keep going on forever until they finally get what they want, but I also don't want this to be something that needs to be brought to an administrator noticeboard. Am I somehow completely wrong with what I am telling the user, or is there something that can be done to finally end this all? If what I am telling them is correct though, I really don't know what else to do then- I don't want to keep trying to find a different/better way to explain the same thing to them some more, just to continue asking the same questions that have already been answered. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media), and was told to post it here instead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that this notability guideline addresses notability of television series, but does not specifically address when individual seasons of shows should have their own articles. I and some other AFC reviewers think that upcoming seasons are seldom notable, just as shows that have not yet been aired are seldom notable, and unreleased films are seldom notable. Some editors point out that other television shows have had new articles for future seasons before the season starts. Other editors think that this is a case of the argument that other stuff exists that isn't notable, as an excuse for allowing more non-notable stuff.
My thought at this point is that the notability guideline for TV shows should address seasons as well as shows, and should say that upcoming seasons do not need their own articles. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted as an article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe the time has come to do something about bad TV character articles. There are tons and tons of decade-old legacy articles (and also new articles that follow the bad legacy precedent) on TV characters that very much fail WP:NOTPLOT (often 25-40kB of plot) and fail to establish notability, although at least the main characters typically (at least somewhat) pass WP:GNG because of actor interviews and actor awards etc., and at other times even have WP:GA or WP:FA potential. The articles just don't show it, and (if trimmed for cruft) they usually wouldn't pass as a WP:SPINOUT stand-alone article. Typical examples: Belle (Once Upon a Time), John Sheridan (Babylon 5), Lynette Scavo.
I've seen different ways how to deal with them, and all ways get criticized because they have cons despite their pros. With the fiction AfD waves of the last half year (that usually ended in merge/redirect/delete, in no particular order), I'd like to see what consensus we have nowadays to best clean up such character articles, or (if you don't want to participate in cleanup) at least how you'd like to see it done. If you prefer options C or D, what would you generally do if the merger/redirect/prod action was undone (ignore and move on; discuss; restore the redirect and point to the relevant guidelines in the edit summary; or send it to AfD)?
I am reaching out to your project because your project may have an interest in this discussion: Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. Izno ( talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious how the community feels about the content at Star Parivaar Awards. I believe the award itself is notable, as it is often talked about in trades and is an event aired on the Indian StarPlus network. However, it's basically just StarPlus lavishing praise on its own shows and actors who appear in those shows. As an "in-house" award, there might be a legitimate question as to whether or not the lists of winners are noteworthy or not; an RfC was held at WT:ICTF a while back and consensus favoured the removal of these awards from biographical and TV articles. I thought I'd see if anybody felt the same way about the list of winners in the main subject article as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ben 10 full series; this page reads like a bunch of vague nonsense, what is it supposed to be an article about exactly? ★Trekker ( talk) 16:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm certain I've brought this issue up before but I'm not sure at what venue, but this appears to be the best place right now. This stemmed from an issue at
Watchmen (TV series). For as far I remember and currently, the instructions at
Template:Infobox television for |location=
states, "Production location, i.e. where the show is/was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above (emphasis mine). Now, I've been editing TV Wikipedia articles for over a decade now, and this instruction has essentially been ignored across every major TV article I am aware of. For one, the instructions aren't very logical; there's not much a point in only including locations for shows where they are filmed outside of its origin country, as that leaves a small number of shows. For comparison, it would be the same as not including "English" as its original language if it's country of origin is the United States. So, can we please simply remove the "Leave blank if same as country of origin above" from the instructions.
Drovethrughosts (
talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.. — YoungForever (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
So, looks like it's ending Archived 2020-02-01 at the Wayback Machine. My question is what will happen with shows like Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back and The Masked Singer which uses TVbtN for viewership? I'm not really that knowledgeable with what sites get what ratings, but I know Showbuzz Daily doesn't usually report viewership for those two shows. Magitroopa ( talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Batwoman (TV series)#LaMonica Garrett as starring if Garrett should be considered a main character due to being billed as such, despite only appearing in a crossover episode. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 22:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone make sense of List of The Try Guys episodes? I suggest sitting down before you click the link. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:R from television episode#RfC: The template wording's accuracy.
I've RfCed this because the page has very few active watchlisters other than the disputing parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal . — YoungForever (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to get some more editors to participate in the RFC at Talk:Batwoman_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment about listing the monitor as a main character or a guest. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 01:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company for TV Land: Myths and Legends. Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/companycredits?ref_=ttfc_sa_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC ( talk)
Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company to Fame for 15. Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/companycredits?ref_=ttfc_sa_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC ( talk)
A move discussion is taking place at Talk:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)#Requested move 2 February 2020 which may be of interest to watchers of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I thought I'd ask for some views on making a template like Template:Album ratings for film and TV ratings, which reviews often give now. I have seen the album ratings template used on film and TV articles, but perhaps one for AV media that has that in the name, and with the purple colors used for TV templates, would be worth it? Kingsif ( talk) 03:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have come across a problem where transgender members of staff are being listed by their deadnames on tv shows wikipedia pages. I have been told that the WP:TV policy requires staff to be listed how they are credited in an episode, however I believe an exception should be allowed in these such cases as deadnaming transgender people is inherently transphobic. Ndncndln ( talk) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.We have other policies that apply to articles about trans people, but that is not the situation here if I understand correctly—we're only talking about people mentioned on articles about things they worked on. If there is no reliable source describing a person's new name then we're in a very difficult situation as WP:BLP does not permit us to use unsourced information about living persons. If, however, there is a reliable source then my opinion is that we should use their correct name and mention their credited deadname in a footnote. Interestingly, you'll find precedence for this in different circumstances—take the article The Convention Conundrum (one I worked on, but which passed independent reviews). It credits Kaley Cuoco as such but notes under "Production" that the credits read "Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting" at the time. Perhaps a more relevant case to consider is that of Emily VanDerWerff, a trans reviewer who is now credited by "Emily" rather than her deadname, per consensus here, though in her case the bylines of her articles have been changed online, whereas television credits are not changed in the same way. Masem: I'm not sure whether you meant to write
A core WP BLP policy with regards to transgendered is ...as it's not grammatically correct anyway, but that last word is a slur—I think "transgender people" would fit there instead. Alex 21: you're being quite hostile here. If you don't know what "deadname" means then you can do some research before expressing an opinion. You could start with Healthline's introduction (skip the law-related stuff). You'll see from my examples above (which I wrote before reading your posts here) that your comment about
Just because it is sourced, does not mean we can change what has already happenedoverlooks some actual practice and established consensus. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus to list credited names only.That RFC was nine months ago, and is thus very much still relevant. To overrule it, another site-wide RFC would have to be held and closed with a clear opposing consensus. -- / Alex/ 21 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.It's rather frustrating to deal with non-falsifiable claims that some policy or consensus exists somewhere to say something half-remembered. How about we instead follow the only verifiably true part of policy that's been presented and argue what should happen
on a case-by-case basis? — Bilorv ( talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said above
Bignole, transgendered
is a slur; you simply want the word "transgender" there. You say that: someone going back to look at a page might be a little confused when they don't see the name of the person they saw in the credits
. But this has already been addressed in comments above. AJD notes that a person reading the credits is looking for the person who was involved, not the syntactic sequence of characters listed in the credits—it's more confusing to expect a person to be present in the credits but then to find... well, something that isn't a person but a mistake there. My comment above notes that there is precedent for using a person's correct name and having a footnote listing their deadname to avoid confusion, which allays your confusion concern. And additionally, you did not respond to the example of the Wachowskis. I'd also like to add that your understanding of "revisionist history" is rather unnuanced if it prevents any typographical or editorial changes—should we refer to the
Roman Empire only as Imperium Rōmānum because the former is linguistic revisionism? The important information here is the identifiable object, not the name given to it.
As for your claim that there's a "social justice issue", I'd like to see you actually explain what you mean by "social justice" and justify why it's either a bad thing or a different thing to
WP:BLP's statement that material [about living persons] requires a high degree of sensitivity
. Perhaps the trans individuals you've known are not showing signs of unease when seeing a deadname in a place they expected to see it, but I would expect a therapist to have a much more nuanced understanding of dysphoria and of where a person reasonably expects to see
trauma triggers. —
Bilorv (
talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This discussion relating to the footnote displayed in Template talk:Infobox awards list has gone a week without participants. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. – Tera tix ₵ 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Talk:The_Mandalorian#RfC_regarding_Darksaber_mention_in_The_Mandalorian_plot_summary. For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
List of Ugly Betty episodes transcludes the episode lists from each season's article (e.g., Ugly Betty (season 1)). However, the notes at the bottom of each list are in the main List of Ugly Betty episodes article. Is there a reason I shouldn't move the notes to the individual season articles, so they appear on those pages as well, answering questions like this?
(Posted here because Talk:List of Ugly Betty episodes has been inactive for 11+ years.) —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 02:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I thought this discussion could do with some more views as it concerns quite a significant change of format that could have a knock on effect for other years in television articles. Cheers, This is Paul ( talk) 21:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Would this LoE article be enough to warrant being a separate article from Corn & Peg? I just recently reverted the removal of the LoE from the main article, not realizing it was because this separate LoE article was created. Based off of MOS:TVSPLIT, my guess would be no, and that it should be brought to AfD?... Magitroopa ( talk) 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is open at Talk:2010s in Irish television#Split proposal. Please feel free to comment. This is Paul ( talk) 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gonnym, Ned Scott, Sgeureka, Tom (LT), BrownHairedGirl, and Dthomsen8: As a result of the Various TV-related WikiProject templates TfD, many TV-related WikiProjects were combined into Template:WikiProject Television. This resulted in many pages winding up in many large non-existent categories found at Special:WantedCategories. Most, such as Category:NA-importance Episode coverage articles are probably an artifact of the Template:WikiProject Television template. Modifying the template to put things in existing now-empty categories may solve the problem. Renaming existing categories may be a better solution. Some "Parent" categories with now-empty but probably previously-populated sub-categories include Category:Television game shows task force articles, Category:Episode coverage task force articles, and Category:Television stations task force articles. There may be other empty categories in Special:WantedCategories not related to the 3 parent categories I listed. If there are, these will also need to be dealt with.
So, should the existing categories be renamed to match the populated non-existing ones, or should the template be modified to put pages into the existing categories? If there isn't a permanent decision soon, I recommend modifying the template on a temporary basis, it's the easier decision to undo. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Unwanted side effects of template merge. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces, here is a list of more TV-show specific WikiProjects that could be converted into task forces:
Copying the statement given by User:sgeureka before:
As per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces#Show-specific projects and task forces, We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become task forces of WP:TV. This still allows for greater focus on that show/ topic, but without having to start a whole new project from scratch. Many existing show-specific WikiProjects became projects before the concept of task forces was widely known, and many of them will become task forces in the future. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for more info, or ask for help on WT:TV.
(emphasis mine).
{{
no X|Opposed}}
, so that they can get a separate discussion at a later time.A tag has been placed on File:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
copyright unused file replace by a free file file:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pierpao ( talk) 13:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
So it looks like this parameter is no longer relevant or needed, as it looks like the infobox now automatically takes the name from the page title if you leave the parameter blank or remove it entirely.
For example:
WikiProject Television/Archive 31 |
---|
WikiProject Television/Archive 31 |
---|
Amaury • 18:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion occuring at WP:TFD which may be interests to the followers of this page. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
With news that HBO has officially reclassified Watchmen as a limited series than drama, I made various changes and was going to tag it with a limited series category but was surprised I didn't see anything like that. I may be missing it, but if there is not one, this seems like an oversight, given this is one of the major Emmy classifications. -- Masem ( t) 22:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a RFC at Talk:Big City Greens about including writers in the infobox. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 16:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion which applies to many types of awards, for film, television, theatre, etc. See Talk:Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film#RfC: Indication of other awards.
Should we host indicators of prominent awards in articles about other awards, in cases where the two awards are not mentioned by a reliable source listing both? For instance, indicating Academy Awards in other film awards articles, or indicating Emmy Awards in other television awards articles, or indicating Tony Awards in other theatre awards articles. Binksternet ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor is moving TV series articles between categories: example. The changes seem logical but many of the category links are red. Please can someone who knows whether these categories should exist help out? Certes ( talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a new discussion in WT:Notability (fiction) regarding adding more restrictions on lists regarding fictional elements such as swords, animals, profession, and so on. if anyone is interested in bringing their opinion on the topic. here. Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote. The RFC concerns what template should be used above a transcluded season table on an LoE article: {{ further}}, {{ main}} or {{ for}}. -- / Alex/ 21 10:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an issue I think I've mentioned before, but I've encountered it again and wonder if some more discussion is needed. The issue being that, with the age of international co-productions and streaming, some television shows air first in countries that are not their country of production or even their intended audience. The ones that I've dealt with are Bolívar and Killing Eve.
These shows are in about the same situation, but are doing opposite things. Another show like this is Gentleman Jack, again a BBC/BBC America show, which is listing both the US and UK dates – is this the solution? Kingsif ( talk) 12:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add such a parameter as many animation series and some live-action series typically run in segment format, and making episodes and segments distinct would be useful. One episode is typically two segments, unless it is a double-length special, as then it's just one segment. (Just like when a normally 30-minute series, with commercials, is 60 minutes—or sometimes more—with double-length specials.) It would be especially useful for networks that have a bad habit of not always airing all of their segments together like they should be. Instead, often times, when a new episode of an animation series airs, it's actually only the first segment that's new, with the second being a rerun. So you end up with episode #101 aired on one day, but then down the road, you have #104 split between two separate dates, with #104A on one day, and #104B on another day. For series that don't always have their segments aired together, we would only use this "num_segments" parameter. For series that always have their segments aired together, we would use both this "num_segments" parameter and the already-existing "num_episodes" parameter.
Similarly, because of this, there likely should be a new column for segments added to Template:Television season ratings, along with the option to hide both that and the number of episodes, if needed, just like we already have an option to hide the timeslot, for example. Amaury • 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
num_episodes
parameter, and if there's consensus for that instead, we can just update the template documentation. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 16:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
"Title A"
" and "Cast of "Title B"
" - see
here for example. Even relating to this specific episode/segment, this is from the end of "Senior Discount", which premiered on July 6, 2019. The sister segment, "Shell Games", didn't premiere in the US until just today. The segments get their first actual airing together on March 17, as per
Futon Crtic.Just dropping the same thing here that I left on the talk page of MOS:TV but got no response. It was my understanding that a list of episodes was useful as long as contained sourced information such as air dates and episode titles. Am I wrong in thinking this? See relevant discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call and page history of Live PD: Roll Call, just dealing with two editors there who don't seem to generally deal with TV articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
is not a reliable source. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Twilight Zone task force#Merge the '80s episode articles? I raised a question (linking here due to that project being believed to be inactive): Are there any other cases of parts of episodes having their own articles, as opposed to whole episodes? Ribbet32 ( talk) 03:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
For some of the older cartoons, it's difficult to find accurate airdates. Is Amazon.com a WP:RS for these? I am not sure how they get their dates.
Example: Oh Yeah! Cartoons EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
{{ TV Tropes}} has been nominated for deletion. As it falls within the purview of this WikiProject, your input is requested. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Through the years, Sky has become one of the largest telco companies in Europe and it is now part of Comcast, an American group. The article Sky Studios refers to a campus in London where most of daytime and news programming is produced for UK audiences. However, last year Comcast founded Sky Studios, a European production company dedicated to overseeing all Sky Original productions in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria and Italy, especially Sky Atlantic's. As a result, the article should be renamed to Sky Centre or Sky Campus. There is a discussion here: Talk:Sky Studios#Article direction. I was wondering if anyone had opinions on how to procede with this situation and how to structure the new article. Thanks. -- TheVampire ( talk) 15:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:TV Fool has been nominated for deletion. As it is in the purview of this WikiProject, your input is requested here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, Ravensfire and I have been experiencing, I believe, an uptick in the addition of guest roles and reality show appearances in actor filmographies. I'd like take the the community's temperature on whether this is the intended use of the filmography table, or if we should be tracking their artistic performances here. An example can be found here.
Also, does the community have an official stance on tracking appearances on talk shows? I've seen these added a lot. And generally speaking, I'm concerned that this inflation of actor achievements is intended to make the actor look more prominent than they are, especially in a world where undisclosed paid editors are running marketing campaigns for some of these people. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Plot summaries. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Today, Tracy Spiridakos's character Detective Hailey Upton from NBC's Chicago P.D. (TV series) appeared on CBS' FBI (TV series). Both shows were created by Dick Wolf. How unusual is a cross-network crossover.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Munch has become the only fictional character, played by a single actor, to physically appear on 10 different television series. These shows were on five different networks: NBC (Homicide: Life on the Street, Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Trial by Jury, and 30 Rock); Fox (The X-Files and Arrested Development); UPN (The Beat); HBO (The Wire) and ABC (Jimmy Kimmel Live!). Munch has been one of the few television characters to cross genres, appearing not only in crime drama series, but sitcom (Arrested Development), late night comedy (Jimmy Kimmel Live!) and horror and science fiction (The X-Files).to be specific. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
One Day at a Time's season 4 is being simulcast on Pop TV, Logo TV, and TVLand. Is appropriate to include ratings of all 3 of the simulcasts or just the original network (Pop TV) ratings on episodes and ratings tables? — YoungForever (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Over at Talk:A God Walks into Abar (one of the Watchmen show/episodes), there's an issue of whether to refer to it as a "show" or "episode". Input from here is requested. -- Masem ( t) 05:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Devs (miniseries)#"has" vs. "had" and date for RT and Meta scores . — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I've made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox television to deprecate "show_name" in favour of "name" in the infobox. More information is provided at the discussion. Thank you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Tense . — YoungForever (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Crossposted from articles:
As season 3 of Killing Eve is being aired first in the UK (unlike the other two seasons, which aired first in the US), will the ratings table be using the British figures instead? (The episodes are being released on the same day in the UK and US, but the time difference puts the UK naturally ahead). Kingsif ( talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I've just become aware of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television programs which proposes merging Category:Television programs and Category:Television series to Category:Television shows. Input at the discussion would be welcome. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I follow this page ( Elite (TV series)), and there's at least one edit every day that changes/adds/removes the "(season 1)" etc. to every entry on the cast list. This seems motivated by the announcement that season 4 will have "an all new cast", even though some of the previous cast make appearances in previews. There needs to be some decision to stop this, or the article is going to continue to be really unstable until it's released.
Given that another Netflix Spain and Latin America original ( The House of Flowers (TV series)) also announced "an all new cast" (for its third season) but is actually keeping its entire previous cast and just adding enough actors it's the equivalent of a new cast, there is no certainty as to who is going to be in Elite's season 4, so my preference would to be not include the season appearances, but options:
Please discuss below :) Kingsif ( talk) 21:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I've added TV.com to WP:TVRS as an unreliable source. It is WP:USERGeraged content per its own About page. This was a WP:BOLD edit, so let me know if anyone disagrees. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like the regulars around here to take a look at this and determine whether it meets our guidelines for a standalone episode article. I am... skeptical. Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, if someone can make the user Monidee understand that the plot of that article is too long, it would be good. Maybe me i have no patience. But the plot of the article El clon is very long, and i don't know how to explain. Bradford Talk 17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi fellow editors,
I need some pairs of eyes on the article. An ip address have repeatedly add
WP:SYNTH which is considered to be
WP:OR despite several warnings. —
YoungForever
(talk) 22:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've been running the film article Being Impossible through the GA process, but we have hit an issue that will take some help to resolve (where TV can help): I made the article before the release and was hoping that I would be able to add a full plot summary (if nobody beat me to it) when the film came out last year. For a variety of reasons, the film's release in different countries got pushed back to this year, so it's not been very lucky. HBO have got the film available on VOD - in the US. Neither the GA reviewer nor myself are both in the US and have a HBO subscription, so if anybody here is in the US with HBO and would be willing to watch an interesting film to give a plot summary, we would be very grateful! Kingsif ( talk) 23:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking for AFC review.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 05:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently the Netflix TV series already has 28 awards nominations. Of the 176 existing television series awards articles, only considering D's letter, the following five had fewer or slightly higher nominations.
I ask you, what is the minimum number of awards nominations needed to have an independent article? -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 05:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I point out that now the nominations are 61 and the article ( Draft:List of awards and nominations received by Money Heist) is 15.731 bytes. Do you think that we can split now? -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Happened to come across someone adding the cat Category:Films with screenplays by Peter Gould (writer) to a Better Call Saul ep, which caused me to blink a few times and realize that mid-last year the Film project had asked to move, in bulk "Category:Screenplays by..." to "Category:Films with screenplays by...". Not necessarily a major problem for them, but it does make television episodes now stand out being in there as no one calls a TV episode a film. Unfortunately all the category intersection tools aren't working right now so I can't figure out how many television episode this affects.
There's probably some decisions about whether the script of a TV should be considered a screenplay, but I would think there should be distinction that for a given writer that has done both film and tv, between those two works. -- Masem ( t) 01:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
a film, television program, or video game, a more correct general term would be "script". Scripts specifically for television can be called teleplays and for theater stage plays. Screenplays even if officially can be for other types of media, are commonly used for films only. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Dynasty (2017 TV series) episodes#20 Versus 22 Episodes for Season 3 . — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television season#Format adjustments to deal with title wrap and a new parameter in hopes of implementing changes that will alter the way Infobox television season is visually formatted. Please head over there to join the discussion. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Some conflict has occurred at List of American Dad! episodes regarding recently aired episodes and whether they belong in season 16 or season 17. As a result, the article(s) have started to become a bit of a mess and adiitional input by experienced editors would be helpful. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings (TV series)#"related to" vs "based on". For context, Amazon has bought the rights to The Lord of the Rings books and are making a television series based on those books, but set before the events of the books. They only have the rights to the LOTR books and cannot use any other Middle-earth books as source material for the series. There are a whole bunch of reliable sources supporting these facts in The Lord of the Rings (TV series), including someone who worked on the series and has clearly explained the situation. The dispute is that several editors know a lot about Middle-earth and have decided that if the series is set before the LOTR books then they cannot be based on those books and must be based on other books. Anyone wishing to contribute their thoughts to this discussion is welcome. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Television season ratings#Entire season. -- / Alex/ 21 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? czar 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five [article titles naming] criteria ...
— Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (policy) a.k.a. WP:COMMONNAME
When asked, the only guidance I've seen about defaulting to official titles has been:People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.
— Wikipedia:Official names (explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy)
But this does not go as far as to assert that the official title overrides the " common name" and even though it is meant to paraphrase WP:NCTV, that page makes no such assertion either.If an article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or " Cape Feare").
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Naming conventions (MOS:TV guideline)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 23:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox of each TV series is a "Production" area where it indicates if it is "multi-camera" or not. This does not seem to sport a reliable secondary source in many, if not most, cases. Where is this information sourced, and can we cite the source, so that edits such as this can conform to WP:CATV which requires both support in the article and a citation to a reliable source per WP:V? Thanks. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This is related to The Walking Dead (season 10) and The Tower (The Walking Dead). The 10th season was to be 16 episode, 16 were filmed, but when COVID hit, the 16th and final episode planned had not finished post production, so AMC announced that "The Tower", the 15th episode, would serve as the season finale and the 16th episode to air as a special later in 2020.
The wording used in the various announcements had created problems in how to describe "The Tower" which had taken place here [3], but to summarize: Some sources suggest that AMC considers with the airing of "The Tower" that the season is over and thus "The Tower" would appear to be the "season finale", but other AMC sources say that the 16th episode is the "season finale" that will air later.
I think some of this needs to come from (as I believe) understanding that there's the actual "television season" that works like the fiscal year in business terms, here being for union contracts and the like, running from Sept to the next August. If the 16th episode doesn't air in the 2019-20 television season but the 20-21 season, then things like royalty rates/etc. will be based on that season. So for purposes of this accounting, "The Tower" has to be serve as the "television season" finale since they can't promise when the 16th episode will be airing. Whereas there is the narrative "season" of which these 16 episodes were to belong to, and if/when the DVD is released, will be a part of, and the 16th episode the finale of that.
Normally this is never a problem, the television and the narrative season align and we don't have to worry about that difference. But the situation here has led to edit warring of how to call "The Tower" given the inconsistency in AMC's own wording on this mattrer. -- Masem ( t) 21:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Council of Dads (TV series)#Requested move 5 May 2020. — YoungForever (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist#Lead material. — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Requesting an assessment gets a slow but steady stream of requests for (re-)rating articles qualities and importances. I've been monitoring the page since... um... 2014, and the only person to answer a request since September 2017. I really enjoy doing these, but I think it'd be good for the page to get a wider community input. More requests for assessments are welcome too! — Bilorv ( talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Recently, I've noticed an issue with quite a few of the various pages on secondary characters in The Office (American TV series). There is no real-world notability established in any of these articles unless the character was introduced in later seasons. Honestly, I think most of these articles are not encyclopedic and should be merged into List of The Office (American TV series) characters with a paragraph summary at most for each of them. Wikipedia isn't the place for the bloated fancruft nonsense discussing every single character relationship in articles like Jan Levinson, Stanley Hudson, or Kevin Malone, so these should really be merged into the list of characters article.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The screenshot File:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg, taken from The Simpsons episode, is discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 3, to which I invite you. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like tvaholics.blogspot.com is used as a reference in many TV articles, about 320.
Thing is, this site doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It's self-published anonymously, with no author or owner names. When it does offer a reference, the reference is often a scan of a Neilsen ratings column in a USA Today newspaper ( here for example). The scans are systematically republished, and an apparent copyright violation.
There's the obvious WP:RSSELF problem. But the blogspot site requests contributions and has lots of advertising, so I worry about WP:SPONSORED.
Does anyone object to removing these references? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've heard from @ Rswallis10: and @ Drmargi:, who have reverted some of the edits I made while cleaning up these references. These are the edits in question:
There are a few different patterns in the references I've removed.
One example is what was discussed here last month: <ref name="10-1990">{{cite web|url=http://tvaholics.blogspot.com/2010/06/ratings-archive-october-1990.html|title=Ratings Archive - October 1990|date=June 2, 2010|accessdate=March 21, 2015}}</ref>
This reference goes to a self-published blog, which is an unacceptable source per
WP:SELFPUBLISH.
Another pattern looks like this: <ref name="sept-oct1996">{{cite web|url=http://anythingkiss.com/pi_feedback_challenge/Ratings/19960916-19961027_TVRatings.pdf|title=Nielsen Ratings - September-October 1996|work=USA Today|accessdate=July 13, 2015}}</ref>
contains a reference that claims the work is the USA Today newspaper, but links to a scanned PDF file on the AnythingKiss.com website. The PDF contains scans of partial pages of several issues in the newspaper. The AnythingKiss.com site doesn't claim to have permission to republish scanned copies of the newspaper's content, so this is pretty clearly copyvio. It also isn't a complete reference, since the author, title, publication date, and page number aren't available from the original newspaper.
WP:COPYVIO says, celarly and explicitly: "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to".
Thus, we must remove the URL. If we do so, we're left with a reference that's not at all viable because of those missing parameters. It doesn't identify a source for the referenced facts, and is therefore not verifiable. So, instead, I've replaced the references with {{ citation needed}}.
If this information is valuable, then I'm sure some other source for it exists. It should be possible to retrieve the USA Today articles, either online or physically at a library, for example, and develop proper {{
cite news}} references for them. Until then, because self-published references aren't usable, and because links to copyvio material aren't allowed, the references should be removed and replaced with {{
citation needed}} tags. Something like {{cite news|work=USA Today| page=F3 |title ="Neilsen Ratings for the week of 1 January 2025 |date=2025-01-15 |author=Joe Sample}}
would be appropriate. A URL isn't needed (and a URL top copyvio material isn't used), and a clear and verifiable reference to the source material is provided: the newspaper, publication date, and page number are all provided, along with the title of the column where the information appeared. This is a complete verifiable reference to a third-party source.
@ Drmargi: doesn't provide any detailed reasoning for reverting my edits, but instead insists that I develop consensus for editing the articles per the WP:COPYVIO and WP:SELFPUBLISH policies. And so, here I am! Are there reasons these policies shouldn't be honored in these cases? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Per our discussion, I've edited these articles:
In all cases, I've left whatever claim (or number, or ...) was made; it's just the reference themselves that have bee nreplaced, not the fact in question. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s, where I have proposed renaming 471 categories, by replacing the phrase "television program(me)s" with "Television shows". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like we don't have a List of most expensive television shows article to complement our List of most expensive films article. Does anyone want to write it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Input from other editors are welcome, even if you don't watch the series but have knowledge of non-free images, particularly in relation to MOS:TVIMAGE. You can find all the images here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
About 130 TV project articles use fbibler.chez.com as a source. These pages are all self-published, and therefore are not |reliable sources. Is there any objection to removing these references and replacing them with {{ fact}} tags? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
OK! I've removed these references. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 15:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
This decade-of-years article is unique; I don't think other countries (or broadcast markets?) have articles for a decade of "in television" events. The article is a mess; it's a bunch of smaller articles for each year, all glude together in one topic, headers and footers and all. There's an apparently stalled proposal to split the articles. Is there any reason not to do the split? (Pinging people: Pi314m, This is Paul ) -- Mikeblas ( talk) 17:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Dating review aggregator info. — YoungForever (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers. — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queer Eye (2018 TV series)#Requested move 19 May 2020. — YoungForever (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You may not have heard of it, but it's kind of famous. Your input is welcome at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements. Article could also benefit from more editing/watchers overall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just thought some folks here would like to be able to see proposed drafts and weigh in: Wikipedia:AfC_sorting#Culture/Media/Television_(14). MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Please look at the length of this infobox in this article. Words fail me.-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:WCVB-TV, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
There's been a discussion related to what verb tenses to use for defunct magazines ("is" vs "was") over at WT:MOS#WP:WAS and defunct magazines. In that, I've brought up the concept that there is a difference between "content" that is persistent (that retains present tense) and the "container" (that when it stops publication becomes "was", but its content may still be discussed in present tense)
This led to the discussion of television shows in the same manner. In that it makes sense to same something like I Love Lucy was a television show... I Love Lucy is considered one of the best comedy series... as the show itself was a container, whereas episodes are specific content such that we'd still say "Lucy Does a TV Commercial" is an episode of the television show I Love Lucy.... There are a handful of exceptions (miniseries, one-off events, streaming media shows like Netflix Originals) that have been discussed, but there's now a suggestion of moving on this idea. As this would affect TV shows, I wanted to make sure the TV project was pinged to provide comments on this since this will affect this project the most. -- Masem ( t) 17:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I just want editors or anyone who can help will be fine. I've happen to come across the page and asking for a help request if anyone can change the color scheme format for the American Idol articles (the first 15 seasons). I'm doing this because that from what I observed:
Earlier before I came to the page, I experimented the format on the very first AI season so that this will get attention to editors. I had faced a time constraint and unable to edit most big articles for the time being, however.
For other Idol articles outside US, it's about time to also see a change. Hope if anyone can also agree on the new changes. TVSGuy ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Notifying interested parties that there is a new RfC regarding WP:WAS, the outcome of which might impact WP:TVNOW. See RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe periodical publications that are no longer being published?.— TAnthony Talk 13:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposal. Currently, the mainspace tv series and three individual season articles (currently redirects to the main article) are fully protected due to edit warring/dispute over how to split the main article either to split by season, split to list of episodes, or no split. — YoungForever (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Preferred Order of Episodes. Another discussion about what should be the "correct" order of episodes in episode tables, and whether this should be added to the MOS. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Does any editor have a WrapPro account that they would be willing to get info from a source for me? I'm trying to access this source on TheWrap about Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. but it is behind the WrapPro service. If anyone does and would be willing to copy the text to another site to share with me so I could look over its content to see what could be added, that would be much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:41, 28 May 2020 (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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
If a character looks like an animal but isn't that animal, is it appropriate to use "-like"? For example "rabbit-like" for a character who looks like a rabbit without being a rabbit. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:91EF:58A5:7AF9:DD23 ( talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This series has four character lists. I've proposed merging one of them into List of The Sopranos characters. The series only needs a single list, so it seems like some minor characters will need to be pruned. Doing it one at a time would be best due to their length. If anyone familiar with the series would be available to do it, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, should the merge either be supported or simply recieve no comments for a month, I guess I'll just give it a shot and hope I don't cut anything important. TTN ( talk) 23:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I am writing here to hear others' opinions on this. Recently, Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3) was outright rejected and is not allowed to be in the mainspace until it begins airing, according to the reviewers. They say it is not notable until such time (despite the multiple independent reliable sources covering it). However, I believe the Draft conforms to WP:NTV, WP:TOOSOON, and other guidelines. There has been extensive talk/argument/discussion here, here, and one of the reviewers believes (and apparently others AFC reviewers) that upcoming TV show seasons are not notable until they air. However, I believe this goes against years of precedent in there being an article as long as there is independent reliable sources, etc. The editor has even created a section regarding this on the WP:NTV talk page. I know my writing may come out harsh sometimes (I wouldn't characterize it as whining as they have done. I'm not even a fan of the show. I don't even watch it!), but that's only because this was so unexpected. I have been active around television show articles for a while now (you might've seen me), but this is the first time I have seen a situation like this. Thanks, hope to hear your thoughts. Heartfox ( talk) 07:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to post the full thing because there is a lot to say and it's probably better if it's just read through- a user is currently very persistent that an article for a recently announced series must be created and must not be a redirect to a section on another article. The series in question is The Masked Dancer, a spin-off of Fox's The Masked Singer. Here is the press release on it released this past week.
I've expressed many examples of Wikipedia policies and essays ( WP:WITHIN, WP:TVSHOW, WP:TOOSOON) as well as examples of other series that have a similar situation ( Kamp Koral and The Bachelor: Listen to Your Heart), but the user seems to continue believing that those don't matter and that The Masked Dancer must be created and must not be a redirect.
I really don't want this discussion to keep going on forever until they finally get what they want, but I also don't want this to be something that needs to be brought to an administrator noticeboard. Am I somehow completely wrong with what I am telling the user, or is there something that can be done to finally end this all? If what I am telling them is correct though, I really don't know what else to do then- I don't want to keep trying to find a different/better way to explain the same thing to them some more, just to continue asking the same questions that have already been answered. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media), and was told to post it here instead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that this notability guideline addresses notability of television series, but does not specifically address when individual seasons of shows should have their own articles. I and some other AFC reviewers think that upcoming seasons are seldom notable, just as shows that have not yet been aired are seldom notable, and unreleased films are seldom notable. Some editors point out that other television shows have had new articles for future seasons before the season starts. Other editors think that this is a case of the argument that other stuff exists that isn't notable, as an excuse for allowing more non-notable stuff.
My thought at this point is that the notability guideline for TV shows should address seasons as well as shows, and should say that upcoming seasons do not need their own articles. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted as an article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe the time has come to do something about bad TV character articles. There are tons and tons of decade-old legacy articles (and also new articles that follow the bad legacy precedent) on TV characters that very much fail WP:NOTPLOT (often 25-40kB of plot) and fail to establish notability, although at least the main characters typically (at least somewhat) pass WP:GNG because of actor interviews and actor awards etc., and at other times even have WP:GA or WP:FA potential. The articles just don't show it, and (if trimmed for cruft) they usually wouldn't pass as a WP:SPINOUT stand-alone article. Typical examples: Belle (Once Upon a Time), John Sheridan (Babylon 5), Lynette Scavo.
I've seen different ways how to deal with them, and all ways get criticized because they have cons despite their pros. With the fiction AfD waves of the last half year (that usually ended in merge/redirect/delete, in no particular order), I'd like to see what consensus we have nowadays to best clean up such character articles, or (if you don't want to participate in cleanup) at least how you'd like to see it done. If you prefer options C or D, what would you generally do if the merger/redirect/prod action was undone (ignore and move on; discuss; restore the redirect and point to the relevant guidelines in the edit summary; or send it to AfD)?
I am reaching out to your project because your project may have an interest in this discussion: Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. Izno ( talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious how the community feels about the content at Star Parivaar Awards. I believe the award itself is notable, as it is often talked about in trades and is an event aired on the Indian StarPlus network. However, it's basically just StarPlus lavishing praise on its own shows and actors who appear in those shows. As an "in-house" award, there might be a legitimate question as to whether or not the lists of winners are noteworthy or not; an RfC was held at WT:ICTF a while back and consensus favoured the removal of these awards from biographical and TV articles. I thought I'd see if anybody felt the same way about the list of winners in the main subject article as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Ben 10 full series; this page reads like a bunch of vague nonsense, what is it supposed to be an article about exactly? ★Trekker ( talk) 16:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm certain I've brought this issue up before but I'm not sure at what venue, but this appears to be the best place right now. This stemmed from an issue at
Watchmen (TV series). For as far I remember and currently, the instructions at
Template:Infobox television for |location=
states, "Production location, i.e. where the show is/was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above (emphasis mine). Now, I've been editing TV Wikipedia articles for over a decade now, and this instruction has essentially been ignored across every major TV article I am aware of. For one, the instructions aren't very logical; there's not much a point in only including locations for shows where they are filmed outside of its origin country, as that leaves a small number of shows. For comparison, it would be the same as not including "English" as its original language if it's country of origin is the United States. So, can we please simply remove the "Leave blank if same as country of origin above" from the instructions.
Drovethrughosts (
talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.. — YoungForever (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
So, looks like it's ending Archived 2020-02-01 at the Wayback Machine. My question is what will happen with shows like Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back and The Masked Singer which uses TVbtN for viewership? I'm not really that knowledgeable with what sites get what ratings, but I know Showbuzz Daily doesn't usually report viewership for those two shows. Magitroopa ( talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Batwoman (TV series)#LaMonica Garrett as starring if Garrett should be considered a main character due to being billed as such, despite only appearing in a crossover episode. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 22:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone make sense of List of The Try Guys episodes? I suggest sitting down before you click the link. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:R from television episode#RfC: The template wording's accuracy.
I've RfCed this because the page has very few active watchlisters other than the disputing parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal . — YoungForever (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to get some more editors to participate in the RFC at Talk:Batwoman_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment about listing the monitor as a main character or a guest. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 01:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company for TV Land: Myths and Legends. Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/companycredits?ref_=ttfc_sa_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC ( talk)
Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company to Fame for 15. Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/companycredits?ref_=ttfc_sa_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC ( talk)
A move discussion is taking place at Talk:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)#Requested move 2 February 2020 which may be of interest to watchers of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey, I thought I'd ask for some views on making a template like Template:Album ratings for film and TV ratings, which reviews often give now. I have seen the album ratings template used on film and TV articles, but perhaps one for AV media that has that in the name, and with the purple colors used for TV templates, would be worth it? Kingsif ( talk) 03:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I have come across a problem where transgender members of staff are being listed by their deadnames on tv shows wikipedia pages. I have been told that the WP:TV policy requires staff to be listed how they are credited in an episode, however I believe an exception should be allowed in these such cases as deadnaming transgender people is inherently transphobic. Ndncndln ( talk) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.We have other policies that apply to articles about trans people, but that is not the situation here if I understand correctly—we're only talking about people mentioned on articles about things they worked on. If there is no reliable source describing a person's new name then we're in a very difficult situation as WP:BLP does not permit us to use unsourced information about living persons. If, however, there is a reliable source then my opinion is that we should use their correct name and mention their credited deadname in a footnote. Interestingly, you'll find precedence for this in different circumstances—take the article The Convention Conundrum (one I worked on, but which passed independent reviews). It credits Kaley Cuoco as such but notes under "Production" that the credits read "Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting" at the time. Perhaps a more relevant case to consider is that of Emily VanDerWerff, a trans reviewer who is now credited by "Emily" rather than her deadname, per consensus here, though in her case the bylines of her articles have been changed online, whereas television credits are not changed in the same way. Masem: I'm not sure whether you meant to write
A core WP BLP policy with regards to transgendered is ...as it's not grammatically correct anyway, but that last word is a slur—I think "transgender people" would fit there instead. Alex 21: you're being quite hostile here. If you don't know what "deadname" means then you can do some research before expressing an opinion. You could start with Healthline's introduction (skip the law-related stuff). You'll see from my examples above (which I wrote before reading your posts here) that your comment about
Just because it is sourced, does not mean we can change what has already happenedoverlooks some actual practice and established consensus. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a consensus to list credited names only.That RFC was nine months ago, and is thus very much still relevant. To overrule it, another site-wide RFC would have to be held and closed with a clear opposing consensus. -- / Alex/ 21 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.It's rather frustrating to deal with non-falsifiable claims that some policy or consensus exists somewhere to say something half-remembered. How about we instead follow the only verifiably true part of policy that's been presented and argue what should happen
on a case-by-case basis? — Bilorv ( talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said above
Bignole, transgendered
is a slur; you simply want the word "transgender" there. You say that: someone going back to look at a page might be a little confused when they don't see the name of the person they saw in the credits
. But this has already been addressed in comments above. AJD notes that a person reading the credits is looking for the person who was involved, not the syntactic sequence of characters listed in the credits—it's more confusing to expect a person to be present in the credits but then to find... well, something that isn't a person but a mistake there. My comment above notes that there is precedent for using a person's correct name and having a footnote listing their deadname to avoid confusion, which allays your confusion concern. And additionally, you did not respond to the example of the Wachowskis. I'd also like to add that your understanding of "revisionist history" is rather unnuanced if it prevents any typographical or editorial changes—should we refer to the
Roman Empire only as Imperium Rōmānum because the former is linguistic revisionism? The important information here is the identifiable object, not the name given to it.
As for your claim that there's a "social justice issue", I'd like to see you actually explain what you mean by "social justice" and justify why it's either a bad thing or a different thing to
WP:BLP's statement that material [about living persons] requires a high degree of sensitivity
. Perhaps the trans individuals you've known are not showing signs of unease when seeing a deadname in a place they expected to see it, but I would expect a therapist to have a much more nuanced understanding of dysphoria and of where a person reasonably expects to see
trauma triggers. —
Bilorv (
talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This discussion relating to the footnote displayed in Template talk:Infobox awards list has gone a week without participants. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. – Tera tix ₵ 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Talk:The_Mandalorian#RfC_regarding_Darksaber_mention_in_The_Mandalorian_plot_summary. For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
List of Ugly Betty episodes transcludes the episode lists from each season's article (e.g., Ugly Betty (season 1)). However, the notes at the bottom of each list are in the main List of Ugly Betty episodes article. Is there a reason I shouldn't move the notes to the individual season articles, so they appear on those pages as well, answering questions like this?
(Posted here because Talk:List of Ugly Betty episodes has been inactive for 11+ years.) —[ AlanM1( talk)]— 02:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I thought this discussion could do with some more views as it concerns quite a significant change of format that could have a knock on effect for other years in television articles. Cheers, This is Paul ( talk) 21:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Would this LoE article be enough to warrant being a separate article from Corn & Peg? I just recently reverted the removal of the LoE from the main article, not realizing it was because this separate LoE article was created. Based off of MOS:TVSPLIT, my guess would be no, and that it should be brought to AfD?... Magitroopa ( talk) 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is open at Talk:2010s in Irish television#Split proposal. Please feel free to comment. This is Paul ( talk) 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gonnym, Ned Scott, Sgeureka, Tom (LT), BrownHairedGirl, and Dthomsen8: As a result of the Various TV-related WikiProject templates TfD, many TV-related WikiProjects were combined into Template:WikiProject Television. This resulted in many pages winding up in many large non-existent categories found at Special:WantedCategories. Most, such as Category:NA-importance Episode coverage articles are probably an artifact of the Template:WikiProject Television template. Modifying the template to put things in existing now-empty categories may solve the problem. Renaming existing categories may be a better solution. Some "Parent" categories with now-empty but probably previously-populated sub-categories include Category:Television game shows task force articles, Category:Episode coverage task force articles, and Category:Television stations task force articles. There may be other empty categories in Special:WantedCategories not related to the 3 parent categories I listed. If there are, these will also need to be dealt with.
So, should the existing categories be renamed to match the populated non-existing ones, or should the template be modified to put pages into the existing categories? If there isn't a permanent decision soon, I recommend modifying the template on a temporary basis, it's the easier decision to undo. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Unwanted side effects of template merge. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces, here is a list of more TV-show specific WikiProjects that could be converted into task forces:
Copying the statement given by User:sgeureka before:
As per
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces#Show-specific projects and task forces, We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become task forces of WP:TV. This still allows for greater focus on that show/ topic, but without having to start a whole new project from scratch. Many existing show-specific WikiProjects became projects before the concept of task forces was widely known, and many of them will become task forces in the future. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for more info, or ask for help on WT:TV.
(emphasis mine).
{{
no X|Opposed}}
, so that they can get a separate discussion at a later time.A tag has been placed on File:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
copyright unused file replace by a free file file:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pierpao ( talk) 13:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
So it looks like this parameter is no longer relevant or needed, as it looks like the infobox now automatically takes the name from the page title if you leave the parameter blank or remove it entirely.
For example:
WikiProject Television/Archive 31 |
---|
WikiProject Television/Archive 31 |
---|
Amaury • 18:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion occuring at WP:TFD which may be interests to the followers of this page. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
With news that HBO has officially reclassified Watchmen as a limited series than drama, I made various changes and was going to tag it with a limited series category but was surprised I didn't see anything like that. I may be missing it, but if there is not one, this seems like an oversight, given this is one of the major Emmy classifications. -- Masem ( t) 22:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
There's a RFC at Talk:Big City Greens about including writers in the infobox. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 16:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion which applies to many types of awards, for film, television, theatre, etc. See Talk:Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film#RfC: Indication of other awards.
Should we host indicators of prominent awards in articles about other awards, in cases where the two awards are not mentioned by a reliable source listing both? For instance, indicating Academy Awards in other film awards articles, or indicating Emmy Awards in other television awards articles, or indicating Tony Awards in other theatre awards articles. Binksternet ( talk) 22:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
An IP editor is moving TV series articles between categories: example. The changes seem logical but many of the category links are red. Please can someone who knows whether these categories should exist help out? Certes ( talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I made a new discussion in WT:Notability (fiction) regarding adding more restrictions on lists regarding fictional elements such as swords, animals, profession, and so on. if anyone is interested in bringing their opinion on the topic. here. Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote. The RFC concerns what template should be used above a transcluded season table on an LoE article: {{ further}}, {{ main}} or {{ for}}. -- / Alex/ 21 10:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
This is an issue I think I've mentioned before, but I've encountered it again and wonder if some more discussion is needed. The issue being that, with the age of international co-productions and streaming, some television shows air first in countries that are not their country of production or even their intended audience. The ones that I've dealt with are Bolívar and Killing Eve.
These shows are in about the same situation, but are doing opposite things. Another show like this is Gentleman Jack, again a BBC/BBC America show, which is listing both the US and UK dates – is this the solution? Kingsif ( talk) 12:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to add such a parameter as many animation series and some live-action series typically run in segment format, and making episodes and segments distinct would be useful. One episode is typically two segments, unless it is a double-length special, as then it's just one segment. (Just like when a normally 30-minute series, with commercials, is 60 minutes—or sometimes more—with double-length specials.) It would be especially useful for networks that have a bad habit of not always airing all of their segments together like they should be. Instead, often times, when a new episode of an animation series airs, it's actually only the first segment that's new, with the second being a rerun. So you end up with episode #101 aired on one day, but then down the road, you have #104 split between two separate dates, with #104A on one day, and #104B on another day. For series that don't always have their segments aired together, we would only use this "num_segments" parameter. For series that always have their segments aired together, we would use both this "num_segments" parameter and the already-existing "num_episodes" parameter.
Similarly, because of this, there likely should be a new column for segments added to Template:Television season ratings, along with the option to hide both that and the number of episodes, if needed, just like we already have an option to hide the timeslot, for example. Amaury • 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
num_episodes
parameter, and if there's consensus for that instead, we can just update the template documentation. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 16:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
"Title A"
" and "Cast of "Title B"
" - see
here for example. Even relating to this specific episode/segment, this is from the end of "Senior Discount", which premiered on July 6, 2019. The sister segment, "Shell Games", didn't premiere in the US until just today. The segments get their first actual airing together on March 17, as per
Futon Crtic.Just dropping the same thing here that I left on the talk page of MOS:TV but got no response. It was my understanding that a list of episodes was useful as long as contained sourced information such as air dates and episode titles. Am I wrong in thinking this? See relevant discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call and page history of Live PD: Roll Call, just dealing with two editors there who don't seem to generally deal with TV articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
is not a reliable source. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Twilight Zone task force#Merge the '80s episode articles? I raised a question (linking here due to that project being believed to be inactive): Are there any other cases of parts of episodes having their own articles, as opposed to whole episodes? Ribbet32 ( talk) 03:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
For some of the older cartoons, it's difficult to find accurate airdates. Is Amazon.com a WP:RS for these? I am not sure how they get their dates.
Example: Oh Yeah! Cartoons EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
{{ TV Tropes}} has been nominated for deletion. As it falls within the purview of this WikiProject, your input is requested. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac ( talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Through the years, Sky has become one of the largest telco companies in Europe and it is now part of Comcast, an American group. The article Sky Studios refers to a campus in London where most of daytime and news programming is produced for UK audiences. However, last year Comcast founded Sky Studios, a European production company dedicated to overseeing all Sky Original productions in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria and Italy, especially Sky Atlantic's. As a result, the article should be renamed to Sky Centre or Sky Campus. There is a discussion here: Talk:Sky Studios#Article direction. I was wondering if anyone had opinions on how to procede with this situation and how to structure the new article. Thanks. -- TheVampire ( talk) 15:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:TV Fool has been nominated for deletion. As it is in the purview of this WikiProject, your input is requested here. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, Ravensfire and I have been experiencing, I believe, an uptick in the addition of guest roles and reality show appearances in actor filmographies. I'd like take the the community's temperature on whether this is the intended use of the filmography table, or if we should be tracking their artistic performances here. An example can be found here.
Also, does the community have an official stance on tracking appearances on talk shows? I've seen these added a lot. And generally speaking, I'm concerned that this inflation of actor achievements is intended to make the actor look more prominent than they are, especially in a world where undisclosed paid editors are running marketing campaigns for some of these people. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 14:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Plot summaries. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Today, Tracy Spiridakos's character Detective Hailey Upton from NBC's Chicago P.D. (TV series) appeared on CBS' FBI (TV series). Both shows were created by Dick Wolf. How unusual is a cross-network crossover.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Munch has become the only fictional character, played by a single actor, to physically appear on 10 different television series. These shows were on five different networks: NBC (Homicide: Life on the Street, Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Trial by Jury, and 30 Rock); Fox (The X-Files and Arrested Development); UPN (The Beat); HBO (The Wire) and ABC (Jimmy Kimmel Live!). Munch has been one of the few television characters to cross genres, appearing not only in crime drama series, but sitcom (Arrested Development), late night comedy (Jimmy Kimmel Live!) and horror and science fiction (The X-Files).to be specific. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
One Day at a Time's season 4 is being simulcast on Pop TV, Logo TV, and TVLand. Is appropriate to include ratings of all 3 of the simulcasts or just the original network (Pop TV) ratings on episodes and ratings tables? — YoungForever (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Over at Talk:A God Walks into Abar (one of the Watchmen show/episodes), there's an issue of whether to refer to it as a "show" or "episode". Input from here is requested. -- Masem ( t) 05:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Devs (miniseries)#"has" vs. "had" and date for RT and Meta scores . — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I've made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox television to deprecate "show_name" in favour of "name" in the infobox. More information is provided at the discussion. Thank you. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 09:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Tense . — YoungForever (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Crossposted from articles:
As season 3 of Killing Eve is being aired first in the UK (unlike the other two seasons, which aired first in the US), will the ratings table be using the British figures instead? (The episodes are being released on the same day in the UK and US, but the time difference puts the UK naturally ahead). Kingsif ( talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I've just become aware of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television programs which proposes merging Category:Television programs and Category:Television series to Category:Television shows. Input at the discussion would be welcome. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I follow this page ( Elite (TV series)), and there's at least one edit every day that changes/adds/removes the "(season 1)" etc. to every entry on the cast list. This seems motivated by the announcement that season 4 will have "an all new cast", even though some of the previous cast make appearances in previews. There needs to be some decision to stop this, or the article is going to continue to be really unstable until it's released.
Given that another Netflix Spain and Latin America original ( The House of Flowers (TV series)) also announced "an all new cast" (for its third season) but is actually keeping its entire previous cast and just adding enough actors it's the equivalent of a new cast, there is no certainty as to who is going to be in Elite's season 4, so my preference would to be not include the season appearances, but options:
Please discuss below :) Kingsif ( talk) 21:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I've added TV.com to WP:TVRS as an unreliable source. It is WP:USERGeraged content per its own About page. This was a WP:BOLD edit, so let me know if anyone disagrees. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like the regulars around here to take a look at this and determine whether it meets our guidelines for a standalone episode article. I am... skeptical. Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, if someone can make the user Monidee understand that the plot of that article is too long, it would be good. Maybe me i have no patience. But the plot of the article El clon is very long, and i don't know how to explain. Bradford Talk 17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi fellow editors,
I need some pairs of eyes on the article. An ip address have repeatedly add
WP:SYNTH which is considered to be
WP:OR despite several warnings. —
YoungForever
(talk) 22:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've been running the film article Being Impossible through the GA process, but we have hit an issue that will take some help to resolve (where TV can help): I made the article before the release and was hoping that I would be able to add a full plot summary (if nobody beat me to it) when the film came out last year. For a variety of reasons, the film's release in different countries got pushed back to this year, so it's not been very lucky. HBO have got the film available on VOD - in the US. Neither the GA reviewer nor myself are both in the US and have a HBO subscription, so if anybody here is in the US with HBO and would be willing to watch an interesting film to give a plot summary, we would be very grateful! Kingsif ( talk) 23:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Looking for AFC review.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 05:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Currently the Netflix TV series already has 28 awards nominations. Of the 176 existing television series awards articles, only considering D's letter, the following five had fewer or slightly higher nominations.
I ask you, what is the minimum number of awards nominations needed to have an independent article? -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 05:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I point out that now the nominations are 61 and the article ( Draft:List of awards and nominations received by Money Heist) is 15.731 bytes. Do you think that we can split now? -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Happened to come across someone adding the cat Category:Films with screenplays by Peter Gould (writer) to a Better Call Saul ep, which caused me to blink a few times and realize that mid-last year the Film project had asked to move, in bulk "Category:Screenplays by..." to "Category:Films with screenplays by...". Not necessarily a major problem for them, but it does make television episodes now stand out being in there as no one calls a TV episode a film. Unfortunately all the category intersection tools aren't working right now so I can't figure out how many television episode this affects.
There's probably some decisions about whether the script of a TV should be considered a screenplay, but I would think there should be distinction that for a given writer that has done both film and tv, between those two works. -- Masem ( t) 01:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
a film, television program, or video game, a more correct general term would be "script". Scripts specifically for television can be called teleplays and for theater stage plays. Screenplays even if officially can be for other types of media, are commonly used for films only. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Dynasty (2017 TV series) episodes#20 Versus 22 Episodes for Season 3 . — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television season#Format adjustments to deal with title wrap and a new parameter in hopes of implementing changes that will alter the way Infobox television season is visually formatted. Please head over there to join the discussion. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Some conflict has occurred at List of American Dad! episodes regarding recently aired episodes and whether they belong in season 16 or season 17. As a result, the article(s) have started to become a bit of a mess and adiitional input by experienced editors would be helpful. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings (TV series)#"related to" vs "based on". For context, Amazon has bought the rights to The Lord of the Rings books and are making a television series based on those books, but set before the events of the books. They only have the rights to the LOTR books and cannot use any other Middle-earth books as source material for the series. There are a whole bunch of reliable sources supporting these facts in The Lord of the Rings (TV series), including someone who worked on the series and has clearly explained the situation. The dispute is that several editors know a lot about Middle-earth and have decided that if the series is set before the LOTR books then they cannot be based on those books and must be based on other books. Anyone wishing to contribute their thoughts to this discussion is welcome. - adamstom97 ( talk) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Television season ratings#Entire season. -- / Alex/ 21 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? czar 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five [article titles naming] criteria ...
— Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (policy) a.k.a. WP:COMMONNAME
When asked, the only guidance I've seen about defaulting to official titles has been:People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.
— Wikipedia:Official names (explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy)
But this does not go as far as to assert that the official title overrides the " common name" and even though it is meant to paraphrase WP:NCTV, that page makes no such assertion either.If an article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or " Cape Feare").
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Naming conventions (MOS:TV guideline)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 23:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox of each TV series is a "Production" area where it indicates if it is "multi-camera" or not. This does not seem to sport a reliable secondary source in many, if not most, cases. Where is this information sourced, and can we cite the source, so that edits such as this can conform to WP:CATV which requires both support in the article and a citation to a reliable source per WP:V? Thanks. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This is related to The Walking Dead (season 10) and The Tower (The Walking Dead). The 10th season was to be 16 episode, 16 were filmed, but when COVID hit, the 16th and final episode planned had not finished post production, so AMC announced that "The Tower", the 15th episode, would serve as the season finale and the 16th episode to air as a special later in 2020.
The wording used in the various announcements had created problems in how to describe "The Tower" which had taken place here [3], but to summarize: Some sources suggest that AMC considers with the airing of "The Tower" that the season is over and thus "The Tower" would appear to be the "season finale", but other AMC sources say that the 16th episode is the "season finale" that will air later.
I think some of this needs to come from (as I believe) understanding that there's the actual "television season" that works like the fiscal year in business terms, here being for union contracts and the like, running from Sept to the next August. If the 16th episode doesn't air in the 2019-20 television season but the 20-21 season, then things like royalty rates/etc. will be based on that season. So for purposes of this accounting, "The Tower" has to be serve as the "television season" finale since they can't promise when the 16th episode will be airing. Whereas there is the narrative "season" of which these 16 episodes were to belong to, and if/when the DVD is released, will be a part of, and the 16th episode the finale of that.
Normally this is never a problem, the television and the narrative season align and we don't have to worry about that difference. But the situation here has led to edit warring of how to call "The Tower" given the inconsistency in AMC's own wording on this mattrer. -- Masem ( t) 21:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Council of Dads (TV series)#Requested move 5 May 2020. — YoungForever (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist#Lead material. — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Requesting an assessment gets a slow but steady stream of requests for (re-)rating articles qualities and importances. I've been monitoring the page since... um... 2014, and the only person to answer a request since September 2017. I really enjoy doing these, but I think it'd be good for the page to get a wider community input. More requests for assessments are welcome too! — Bilorv ( talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Recently, I've noticed an issue with quite a few of the various pages on secondary characters in The Office (American TV series). There is no real-world notability established in any of these articles unless the character was introduced in later seasons. Honestly, I think most of these articles are not encyclopedic and should be merged into List of The Office (American TV series) characters with a paragraph summary at most for each of them. Wikipedia isn't the place for the bloated fancruft nonsense discussing every single character relationship in articles like Jan Levinson, Stanley Hudson, or Kevin Malone, so these should really be merged into the list of characters article.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The screenshot File:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg, taken from The Simpsons episode, is discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 3, to which I invite you. -- George Ho ( talk) 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like tvaholics.blogspot.com is used as a reference in many TV articles, about 320.
Thing is, this site doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It's self-published anonymously, with no author or owner names. When it does offer a reference, the reference is often a scan of a Neilsen ratings column in a USA Today newspaper ( here for example). The scans are systematically republished, and an apparent copyright violation.
There's the obvious WP:RSSELF problem. But the blogspot site requests contributions and has lots of advertising, so I worry about WP:SPONSORED.
Does anyone object to removing these references? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I've heard from @ Rswallis10: and @ Drmargi:, who have reverted some of the edits I made while cleaning up these references. These are the edits in question:
There are a few different patterns in the references I've removed.
One example is what was discussed here last month: <ref name="10-1990">{{cite web|url=http://tvaholics.blogspot.com/2010/06/ratings-archive-october-1990.html|title=Ratings Archive - October 1990|date=June 2, 2010|accessdate=March 21, 2015}}</ref>
This reference goes to a self-published blog, which is an unacceptable source per
WP:SELFPUBLISH.
Another pattern looks like this: <ref name="sept-oct1996">{{cite web|url=http://anythingkiss.com/pi_feedback_challenge/Ratings/19960916-19961027_TVRatings.pdf|title=Nielsen Ratings - September-October 1996|work=USA Today|accessdate=July 13, 2015}}</ref>
contains a reference that claims the work is the USA Today newspaper, but links to a scanned PDF file on the AnythingKiss.com website. The PDF contains scans of partial pages of several issues in the newspaper. The AnythingKiss.com site doesn't claim to have permission to republish scanned copies of the newspaper's content, so this is pretty clearly copyvio. It also isn't a complete reference, since the author, title, publication date, and page number aren't available from the original newspaper.
WP:COPYVIO says, celarly and explicitly: "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to".
Thus, we must remove the URL. If we do so, we're left with a reference that's not at all viable because of those missing parameters. It doesn't identify a source for the referenced facts, and is therefore not verifiable. So, instead, I've replaced the references with {{ citation needed}}.
If this information is valuable, then I'm sure some other source for it exists. It should be possible to retrieve the USA Today articles, either online or physically at a library, for example, and develop proper {{
cite news}} references for them. Until then, because self-published references aren't usable, and because links to copyvio material aren't allowed, the references should be removed and replaced with {{
citation needed}} tags. Something like {{cite news|work=USA Today| page=F3 |title ="Neilsen Ratings for the week of 1 January 2025 |date=2025-01-15 |author=Joe Sample}}
would be appropriate. A URL isn't needed (and a URL top copyvio material isn't used), and a clear and verifiable reference to the source material is provided: the newspaper, publication date, and page number are all provided, along with the title of the column where the information appeared. This is a complete verifiable reference to a third-party source.
@ Drmargi: doesn't provide any detailed reasoning for reverting my edits, but instead insists that I develop consensus for editing the articles per the WP:COPYVIO and WP:SELFPUBLISH policies. And so, here I am! Are there reasons these policies shouldn't be honored in these cases? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Per our discussion, I've edited these articles:
In all cases, I've left whatever claim (or number, or ...) was made; it's just the reference themselves that have bee nreplaced, not the fact in question. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s, where I have proposed renaming 471 categories, by replacing the phrase "television program(me)s" with "Television shows". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It looks like we don't have a List of most expensive television shows article to complement our List of most expensive films article. Does anyone want to write it? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Input from other editors are welcome, even if you don't watch the series but have knowledge of non-free images, particularly in relation to MOS:TVIMAGE. You can find all the images here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 17:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
About 130 TV project articles use fbibler.chez.com as a source. These pages are all self-published, and therefore are not |reliable sources. Is there any objection to removing these references and replacing them with {{ fact}} tags? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 14:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
OK! I've removed these references. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 15:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
This decade-of-years article is unique; I don't think other countries (or broadcast markets?) have articles for a decade of "in television" events. The article is a mess; it's a bunch of smaller articles for each year, all glude together in one topic, headers and footers and all. There's an apparently stalled proposal to split the articles. Is there any reason not to do the split? (Pinging people: Pi314m, This is Paul ) -- Mikeblas ( talk) 17:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Dating review aggregator info. — YoungForever (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers. — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queer Eye (2018 TV series)#Requested move 19 May 2020. — YoungForever (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You may not have heard of it, but it's kind of famous. Your input is welcome at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements. Article could also benefit from more editing/watchers overall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just thought some folks here would like to be able to see proposed drafts and weigh in: Wikipedia:AfC_sorting#Culture/Media/Television_(14). MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Please look at the length of this infobox in this article. Words fail me.-- AussieLegend ( ✉) 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:WCVB-TV, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
There's been a discussion related to what verb tenses to use for defunct magazines ("is" vs "was") over at WT:MOS#WP:WAS and defunct magazines. In that, I've brought up the concept that there is a difference between "content" that is persistent (that retains present tense) and the "container" (that when it stops publication becomes "was", but its content may still be discussed in present tense)
This led to the discussion of television shows in the same manner. In that it makes sense to same something like I Love Lucy was a television show... I Love Lucy is considered one of the best comedy series... as the show itself was a container, whereas episodes are specific content such that we'd still say "Lucy Does a TV Commercial" is an episode of the television show I Love Lucy.... There are a handful of exceptions (miniseries, one-off events, streaming media shows like Netflix Originals) that have been discussed, but there's now a suggestion of moving on this idea. As this would affect TV shows, I wanted to make sure the TV project was pinged to provide comments on this since this will affect this project the most. -- Masem ( t) 17:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I just want editors or anyone who can help will be fine. I've happen to come across the page and asking for a help request if anyone can change the color scheme format for the American Idol articles (the first 15 seasons). I'm doing this because that from what I observed:
Earlier before I came to the page, I experimented the format on the very first AI season so that this will get attention to editors. I had faced a time constraint and unable to edit most big articles for the time being, however.
For other Idol articles outside US, it's about time to also see a change. Hope if anyone can also agree on the new changes. TVSGuy ( talk) 19:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Notifying interested parties that there is a new RfC regarding WP:WAS, the outcome of which might impact WP:TVNOW. See RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe periodical publications that are no longer being published?.— TAnthony Talk 13:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposal. Currently, the mainspace tv series and three individual season articles (currently redirects to the main article) are fully protected due to edit warring/dispute over how to split the main article either to split by season, split to list of episodes, or no split. — YoungForever (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Preferred Order of Episodes. Another discussion about what should be the "correct" order of episodes in episode tables, and whether this should be added to the MOS. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Does any editor have a WrapPro account that they would be willing to get info from a source for me? I'm trying to access this source on TheWrap about Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. but it is behind the WrapPro service. If anyone does and would be willing to copy the text to another site to share with me so I could look over its content to see what could be added, that would be much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)