![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 39 |
Are there any good examples of a well-crafted "List of programs broadcast by <network name>"? I just need one or two. Alternatively, an example or two of a decent TV network article that might also include programming tables. I have an issue at Surya TV and I don't think the other editor has likely seen what a quality article of this sort is supposed to look like. This one has a weird # of episodes column with content like "207+/1353". ??? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Upcoming redirects. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Upcoming redirects until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
YoungForever
(talk)
17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, Game of Thrones has an open peer review subpage in preparation for a possible featured article nomination, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Game of Thrones/archive5. Of course, any comments and feedback to improve the article are welcome and encouraged. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
With TVbythenumbers dead and Programming Insider not publishing any DVR ratings data since August 15 there's nothing to put in them. Variety seem to be completely random when they do releases and even then those are for broadcast shows and not cable. There's no other source online as far as I know which publishes these numbers.
Without wanting to sound like I'm rambling should tables with at least five or six weeks of no DVR numbers be deleted or hidden? Nielsen releases these numbers weekly but if no website can be bothered to publish why clutter pages with empty DVR tables? 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 13:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see this discussion, thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 15:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Rodzinka.pl is a new article accepted at AfC today. A lot of cleanup has been done but there are some outstanding tasks that need to be completed. The first is the infobox, which appears to have been copied straight from the Polish Wikipedia. I have moved the Polish text to the talk page since I don't understand Polish (ironic since my dearly departed wife of 35 years was Polish) and I have replaced it with our infobox. The article needs various fixes in other areas as well but the biggest problem is the Polish infobox. Help fixing this would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following matter: Talk:Legend of the Seeker#Craig Parker's Billing Status.
Favre1fan93, Masem, Bignole, and/or Alex 21, can we get your help on this on the article talk page? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 19:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: I removed the text, it was a copy of the official web site.
Anyone from Canada familiar with this show? Is it notable?
It has supposedly won "Best Performance Children's or Youth Non-Fiction Program or Series Best Performance Children's or Youth Fiction Program or Series" but there's no citation, and the official web site doesn't make that claim.
If it's a no-name TV show I'll reject the draft outright even though it hasn't been submitted yet. If the topic might be notable, then please help improve the draft.
By the way, the publicity image in the draft and other publicity images uploaded by the uploader to the Commons are likely copyright violations, I've tagged them as such, so they will probably disappear in a week. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
For editors in the group, we need help to complete the change of color template design in all articles so that it will reflect the way it currently presented in the post-ABC era ( season 16 and later). Up until now, most editors had done most of the maintenance work but up until the pre-live show stage on August (for season 4), and no work has done yet up until now. If you are seeing this, please help do your best to make it consistent and help with the updates of the color schemes. This goes the same for the other seasons until season 15 (the pre-FOX era) as well, and other Idol season as well.
The color design was more contrast and bright, and so far it has been used in other shows such as SPOP Sing! (season 1) (so far only one show has done that using the template, for the record). The reason for the change is because that the blue box saying elimination and the gray header are not properly contrast and a bold typeface is heavily used for elimination. The colorful design is much more appealing, appropriate, and consistent like the one used for displaying results in other singing reality shows such as The Voice (American TV series) and The X Factor (British TV series).
I just want to look for editors to help because I (plus some other editors) am busy. Thanks for lending a hand. TVSGuy ( talk) 09:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Though this might be more of a biographical question, but when do we typically add a future television event to someone's filmography? If an actor is slated to appear in a film, we typically don't add that credit until filming begins. For television work, do we add that when they start taping, or once the thing airs? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
{{ Infobox television}} list_episodes current says:
Anyone object to adding:
Please also contribute to the discussion on the policy that currently says avoid links to sections of an article from its Infobox.
Jim Craigie ( talk) 13:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:F Is for Family § Rename. The discussion concerns the use of "Is" vs. "is" in the article's title, quoting
MOS:CT. -- /
Alex/
21
22:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Editors may want to keep an eye on Mars University. Earlier today an editor unilaterally changed the content of the article (about an episode of Futurama) to instead discuss an academic institution. Another editor subsequently nominated the article for speedy deletion as they felt the new content was promotional; I'm assuming they didn't realize that content was new and had nothing to do with the article's stable content. I've deleted the speedy notice and advised the first editor that that kind of wholesale change to an article's content is inappropriate. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 03:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Would appreciate some comments on ScreenPlay on whether to use a "custom" episode table (as is currently used), or use one using the standard television templates, which can be seen on this version. Please also note that the current table was changed 2 days ago meaning that it itself isn't the status-quo either. There are some disagreements on the usage, which is why I'd appreciate other opinions. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Old revision of ScreenPlay contains a table of plays, not a list of episodes: there in not a one-to-one correspondence. A single sortable table is useful in drama anthologies to allow readers to group plays by playwright or director or title over the whole table.
The list is probably currently incomplete.
The BBC did not assign any public numbering to the plays or episodes.
Unfortunately {{ Episode list}} is unsuitable for this list because:
Jim Craigie ( talk) 16:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|list_episodes=
is used, so saying these are not episodes yet using the parameter which calls these episodes is contradicting. Secondly, a television series is made up of episodes. The fact that the BBC did not assign episode numbers is irrelevant. The numbers represent the broadcast order, which is the default order we list these things. In cases where we list them based on a different order, that is noted in the article. Seeing how the order is the broadcast order (based on the date value), then the numbering is correct. "What links here" only shows anchor links from Redirect pages, not from articles, so it is next to impossible to maintain links to anchors that are likely to changewhich is why MOS:REDIR says to use redirects rather than direct links with "#" targets. I also love how the terminology is so important to you, saying
contains a table of plays, not a list of episodes, yet all the redirects you created, such as Available Light (1990 film), are disambiguated with "film". So are these plays or films? Anyways, it's also besides the point, as if these plays, or films, were created for a single series and broadcast as part of entries in a season, then calling them episodes is perfectly fine. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:Netflix original ended series. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Template:Netflix original ended series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
YoungForever
(talk)
14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I am an active user on the Spanish Wikipedia, but a few weeks ago I started a full translation of an article to upgrade it. It is the one about the Chilean TV series 31 minutos, and reviewing the rating given to it (the year 2009, when it barely gave simple descriptions), I don't think it is fair considering the time elapsed and the current state of the article. As I have already mentioned, I am not very active in the English Wikipedia (and in fact, I do not handle the language well either), but I wanted to ask anyway if it is possible to re-evaluate the article. Even in the Spanish version it is a good article, so I have no doubt that this one can be too, if given a grammar and spelling check. I'm looking forward to the answer, thanks. -- TheUser41 ( talk) 15:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ IJBall: Yes, I was referring to that evaluation. I agree to keep it in 'C' class for the time being, thank you very much for updating it. -- TheUser41 ( talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts on the Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons and Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons: The Movie articles? Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons started out as a web series, but it only released one episode before the entire content was released as a movie, and the series isn't going ahead anymore. Should the former article be merged into the latter? -- / Alex/ 21 01:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the notability of the individual episode articles for The Mandalorian that are being created. Wanted to make the larger TV project aware of this. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Mandalorian#Episodes articles. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Nikki and Paulo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have submitted this new draft today and also the other article with the maximum number of references I can afford to and also while following all Wikipedia guidelines for a Wikipedia article. I request the senior Wikipedian Gods please do look into this article and give in your valuable permission for these articles. -- Aleyamma38 ( talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've started a stub for a missing article at Flesh and Blood. I'm basically retired from Wikipedia and I don't intend to continue working on it. It would be great if someone could expand it. There is talk of a second season being produced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Bear Witness, Take Action § Request Edit November 19th.
Oceans87 (
talk)
19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Vikings: Valhalla was created last month and is in need of further eyes to clean it up; I've tried my best to make it encyclopedic, but some of the language was not worthy of a WP:TV article. -- / Alex/ 21 00:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Question about MOS:TVCHARACTER. I would appreciate it if more WP:TV regulars would take a look at this discussion, and weigh in on the proper use (or not!) of bolding at our List of Characters (LoC) articles, and whether MOS:TV should be revised about this. Thank you --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The following IP users have edited the page Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous to repeatedly add the same false information:
|
|
All of these IP-accounts are from Italy, meaning that they are either (1) bots, (2) trolls from Italy / trolls using a VPN, or (3) some lonely person with multiple devices just spam editing on Wikipedia. Should a protection template be added, and if so, can an admin add one? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) § Wear Your Magazine quote. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion as well the discussion below it. —
YoungForever
(talk)
15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Quatermass and the Pit is the oldest unreviewed featured article—last reviewed in 2004. It still looks good to me, but I don't watch TV at all, much less British TV or science fiction. Please provide feedback at Talk:Quatermass and the Pit#WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
FTR, it looks to me like Making Waves (TV series) is a much bigger problem than any of the Quatermass WP:FAs. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
You know, looking that this list, and this one, there are remarkably few TV series articles WP:FAs (and a lot of the former ones have been delisted). (There are way more TV episode FAs in comparison.) I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just noting it. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I've got a problem here – I boldly merged this article back to ThunderCats (2011 TV series), as we don't do LoE article for single-season (just 26 episodes) TV series as per long-standing WP:TV practice (as per MOS:TVSPLIT), but the merge was reverted. Would others around her like to explain to Dream Focus how this is done?
And, yes – the episode summaries are actually too long – I was going to {{ Long plot}} tag that section before I was reverted. (Note that the LoE article is 72 kB even with the too long episode summaries, and a summary table that violates WP:TVOVERVIEW.) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys. I plan to nominate " The Boys in the Bar" as Featured Article candidate. Honestly, I hope the article becomes my first Featured Article. First, I must improve the article to help it meet featured article criteria. I started the similar discussion earlier this year but haven't yet received replies at Talk:The Boys in the Bar. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020.
TheDoctorWho
(talk)
20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey there I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It raises the question of whether MOS:BIO should include clear criteria about what sort of awards to include in actor biographies. Please comment if you are interested! Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I need some pairs of eyes on the article. A fairly newbie editor have been repeatedly moving The Vow (TV series) to The Vow NXIVM Documentary (TV series). The page move is unwarranted because reliable sources throughout the article are only referring as "The Vow", including official press releases directly from WarnerMedia's Press and the official title card. "NXIVM Documentary" isn't even part of the title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should be common names. — YoungForever (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive3. Thanks,
Heartfox (
talk)
07:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Was checking over the List of human characters in Sesame Street & related bio articles. What exactly is their status now. Are they retired from the show or not? GoodDay ( talk) 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Recently saw the addition of MouthShut.com to the External Links of TV Articles along with IMDB links. Does this violate MOS:TVEXLINKS defcon5 ( talk) 09:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, are there any style guidelines for Big Brother/Bigg Boss-style reality shows? An editor brought Bigg Boss (Tamil season 4) to my attention and there are what I assume to be some serious WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, mostly with smooshed fonts, and especially in the Bigg Boss (Tamil season 4)#Nominations table, which is very difficult to read. Is there an "ideal" for what these pages should look like? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
"Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook)."So under no circumstances is "60%" font size "OK". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Are hatnotes, particularly when a season has ended and it says "for the recent season, see..." proper? I don't know why that's necessary like... does that just stay there forever? I believe they perhaps have some helpfulness when a season is actually airing and readers may want a quick link to the season article if they happened to be on the series page, but are they really necessary after a season has ended?? What I'm seeing per WP:RELATED is that "They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic." Would the "specific aspect" here be the season article link? What's the/is there a consensus on the use of hatnotes? Heartfox ( talk) 20:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the ideal way to format the show title Hero – Gayab Mode On?
Something else? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
When writing the runtime of a TV show in an article, do we write the time based on a single segment or two segments which most episodes have? Wubzy ( talk) 06:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
184.160.70.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started 10 drafts in the last week. I can't tell if these are notable or not.
It would be helpful if someone familiar with Canadian TV would put a note on each talk page saying if the person is clearly notable, maybe, or clearly not notable. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 🎄 19:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I have a question - I recently created an article for the episode Pure, which was the season finale of Into the Dark. I was planning on returning to it and fleshing it out more, but at that point in time the article was just sections on plot, cast, and a reception section. The episode had reviews from multiple reliable sources, many of which are fairly notable media outlets. For example, there were reviews from RogerEbert.com, Vulture, /Film, io9, The Verge, and The Daily Dot and there was other light coverage from outlets like Bloody Disgusting, TheWrap, and JoBlo.com. Alex_21 moved this to the draftspace and returned the article to a redirect, arguing that the reviews would not be enough to establish notability and that the current state wouldn't be enough, as this was the policy of the notability guidelines for television episodes.
I don't see where this is mentioned, but I did want to ask here to be certain. If I am wrong then I will make sure that I have more sections and content before moving work live. If it does, then this does feel a bit contrary to WP:GNG, as this would otherwise pass notability guidelines and would certainly pass WP:NFILM, which I do think should be considered for feature length film anthology series like this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 03:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the current state of Pure (Into the Dark) shows that the threshold for notability of TV episodes that Alex21, IJBall and others are talking about should be enforced. It gave ReaderofthePack the impulse to vastly improve it, to the point that's good enough to be in the mainspace. El Millo ( talk) 08:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." (emphasis mine)The crux of the question is what actually defines "significant coverage". That's where the disagreement comes in. If you create a TV episode article, and your only sourcing is reviews from iO9 and The Daily Dot, and a Rotten Tomatoes summary page, then, no – I am going to say that the "significant coverage" benchmark is clearly not met by that, and I'm going to vote "delete" at AfD, or state that the article should be taken to Draft. Now, if you have an article on a TV episode, and its only sourcing is 4 reviews, and they're from, say, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, TVLine and Bloody Disgusting, then that is a lot closer to clearing WP:GNG outright. And if the reviews include Variety- or The Hollywood Reporter-level reviews, then, yes – it almost certainly clears WP:GNG on that alone (even probably without a 'Production' section, though if it's getting reviewed in Variety, then production info is almost certainly out there too). So, no – I don't accept Toughpigs's original contention – if the article had just those review sources, and no 'Production' section, it shouldn't be an article in mainspace. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Per this diff, I recall that there was an earlier discussion and found this discussion related to "web television" and getting rid of that. On getting rid of web television, that absolutely makes sense, but the fact this is leaving behind "streaming television" I think is just as bad. A television series is a television series regardless if is streams or broadcasts. We don't identify books as "ebooks" if they are only released electronically; its still a book in all forms. A TV series is the same way. That it was on a streaming service first should be obvious from identifying the first broadcast home but after that, it could go to a home video release or release in other formats at which point calling it a "streaming television" series becomes nonsense. This also just adds too much genre/type kudzo to these programs. Like films, TV shows should be identified by at most two primary genres, and if there are other genres that play into it, that can be described later.
I think the concern from the past discussion is that you do want to distinguish web media-based shows that do not broadcast or go to a subscription-based service (something like Hot Ones) which is a web series, compared to shows that, yes, you may be able to get via the web, but are meant to be treated as television programs from both production and broadcast approaches (eg Netflix/Hulu/Amazon original programming). The fact that there's no distinguishing these anymore at the Emmys should be a sign that we should not be treating these differently from other broadcast series. -- Masem ( t) 05:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"The Society is an American mystery teen drama television series created by Christopher Keyser, that was released via streaming on Netflix on May 10, 2019."formulation for ledes of these kinds of shows – it avoids the whole "streaming television" issue. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
So besides the fact that there may be instances where it is unclear if something is a web series (which will probably need to be determined at those article's talk pages), is there agreement here that we don't want to be encouraging the use of "streaming television series"? - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
"The Society is an American mystery teen drama television series created by Christopher Keyser, that was released via streaming on Netflix on May 10, 2019."– I'm not going to say "streaming television" is "wrong" in the way that "web television" clearly was (as a WP:OR WP:NEOLOGISM only used on Wikipedia). IOW, I don't think as a WP we really need to be "prescriptive" about this – editors at the various articles can figure out what they want. I don't think this WP should say either way is "right" or "wrong" or "preferred". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There is an ANI report you may be interested in: Disruptive user seemingly not understanding. A lot of their edits need to be reformatted. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ Game Show Network}} has been revamped to be in chronological order, like most other channel/network navboxes such as the slightly larger {{ Adult Swim original programming}}. I feel like all the navboxes of this type should be formatted like this, when not subdivided like {{ Nickelodeon original series}}/{{ Former Nickelodeon original series}}/{{ Nickelodeon Network Game Shows}}/{{ Nickelodeon Original Movies}}. Should the years also be made small, like in {{ BET}}?
I may experiment with colors as well, to match the channel colors (e.g. white on light blue and reddish-orange for GSN, as seen in the current logo). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I work for The First TV ( Bill O'Reilly's new network). I've created a draft for The First, which can be found at Draft:The First TV. I don't want to move the draft to mainspace on my own, because I have a conflict of interest and want to respect the process and the community. Would someone consider taking a look at the draft? If you think it merits inclusion, I think it would benefit being moved to mainspace. Thanks! D00dadays ( talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
ViacomCBS employees pressure Pluto TV to stop streaming new Bill O'Reilly showand
ViacomCBS Put 'I Can't Breathe' on Its Networks, Still Gives New Bill O'Reilly Show a Platformas evidence of notability and also exclude the majority of those sources' information.
After starting a cleanup of the episode list on Weinerville, I think a tracking category is needed for episode lists that do not use {{ Episode table}} formatting. It would have its own small ambox. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there also a way to track which articles have 'Series overview' tables which are not using the {{ Series overview}} template? This would also be useful information to have. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone think of any examples of quality articles that have a short premise summary like what I see at Northern Rescue, but that also have expanded season summaries like what I'd find at Veronica Mars? I am having trouble finding an article that has both. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not one that normally cares about the aesthetics of Wikipedia's templates so long as it is functional and coherent. However, the series overview template has always appeared very unprofessional to me, or at the very least, has some oversights. The issue I see is that it dedicates an entire cell just to be an empty and solid color. If the goal is just to be more aesthetically recognizable for each season, I think there is a better way to convey that than to just create an empty cell. Below, there is an example of making the template more aesthetically pleasing.
Original | Proposed redesign
|
What do you think? Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not against an update to this template if we can come up with a better option, but looking at these two options above, I prefer the current format. The larger block of colour is easier to see in my opinion, and the whole point is to see the colours to help differentiate each season. I also think it makes sense to have the colour under the season header since the colour is associated with the season itself (as seen in {{ Episode table}} and {{ Infobox television season}}).
If we just want to avoid having a separate cell for the colour, how about something like this?
adamstom97 proposal
|
I think this proposal aligns more with the other templates mentioned than Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal does. - adamstom97 ( talk) 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps just making the colored cell a bit smaller (but not as small as Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal) would make it look more "professional". El Millo ( talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Can't we just remove the colors? Do they really serve a purpose? El Millo ( talk) 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't personally feel there's any need for a redesign, and would be against Adam's given it would be difficult to see what is and isn't links. However, if any is being considered, I understand what Blue Pumpkin Pie was going for in their proposal, but to keep things in the same order as now, I would suggest we just reduce the color column size from what it currently is, rather than move it after the season number and as a line width coloring. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Could anyone offer an addition set of eyes on this article? I have concerns regarding material not being supported by the citations provided, but my efforts to tag or resolve these issues have been reverted. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The user Historyday01 has been going around to various articles on animated TV series and adding large sections about LGBTQ representation and/or views. ( typical example) I can see that for some shows that's a big part of the discourse about the show, but for others, it just isn't. If such matters are tangential to the show's general reception, perhaps being only mentioned in niche or low-quality sources, they should not be given WP:Undue weight. The same applies to any minority group, of course. I think for some of these shows it needs to be reverted, and people more familiar with them can take a look for themselves.
A lot of this material appears to be largely copied from specialized articles they have basically written, like LGBTQ representation in adult animation. If an article like that has a paragraph or two about a show, that makes sense, but lifting that amount of material into the article on the show itself is not appropriate. Crossroads -talk- 23:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Gen. Quon came here to say that to me after Historyday01 decided to start shit-talking me and Crossroads to him. This isn't a playground where you can gossip with your friends then run over to be mean to the kids they don't like. Kingsif ( talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm looking at Dan Levy (Canadian actor). Do individuals usually have "Outstanding Comedy Series" in their award listings? I mean, obviously he was a contributor, but it seems like the award belongs to the show, not the individual. Similarly, do show articles get to brag about Best Actor awards? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement on noted guest appearance on this page history. According to IMDB, before they were main cast members, Lisa Rinna had a credited guest appearance on season 4 episode 10, and Denise Richards had a credited guest appearance on season 5 episode 11. A user keeps deleting this source and removing the appearance from the cast timeline. They say this is not IMDB and these should not be included. If they were credited, then we should note that. Any advise on where to go from here? Thanks! Ev Thom ( talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor decided to make episode articles for every episode of season 1 so far. I skimmed through each of the episode articles and none of them even pass WP:GNG, maybe just the first episode. Everything is already covered on the Episode table. The production section of each of the individual episode article only consist who wrote and directed the episode. Reception only include WP:UGC, specifically IMDb which isn't even appropriate to use. I see nothing new on the individual episode articles. Can editors who are familiar with individual episode articles weigh in on this? — YoungForever (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate standalone article?! It was a one-off broadcast (at least, as of now). I could see merging some of that content to Nickelodeon, but I really can't see the justification for an entire article on a single broadcast like this... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Awikiuserintheworld brought the website [3] to my attention. I'm curious what folks think about it as RS. From what I can tell, it's based in Canada and is not WP:SPS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is. The dates may be wrong, but otherwise the episodes are correct. Oh, and the seasons are wrong. Awikiuserintheworld (talk)
Further to the discussion of individual episode article notability above, I thought I'd bring to discussion the episode articles for SpongeBob SquarePants which are either not Wikiproject-tagged or only WP Animation-tagged, so they wouldn't necessarily be noticed. But for the purposes of episode broadcast, they come under television guidelines.
" Survival of the Idiots" was recently created and I PROD'ed it for non-notability through new page review, since it is almost entirely a plot summary and at the time the only other sources was direct from Nickelodeon saying it was broadcast and included on a DVD. This is basically saying that it exists, which is not notable. The article creator removed the PROD with the reason that it was notable, no evidence provided (I know anyone can remove a PROD, but when they are so obviously ignoring concerns just to stop a speedy delete that doesn't come under an easy category it's plain insulting to Wikipedia process). They then seem to have scoured the internet for any other source and added IMDb ratings and appearance on a Screen Rant list. We all know the IMDb guidelines. SR is an RS, a little more reliable than Buzzfeed but in the same realm - I use it, but as supplemental, and I think anyone who knows media sources would agree that coverage on SR doesn't automatically denote notability, and, moreover, that an episode only being covered outside of publication on a rank list of its season's episodes, unless it's an exceptionally good source, isn't a metric of notability. Most recently, a note was added that the entire plot description is copied from Fandom wiki. If this is the case for all the Spongebob episodes, which are almost all WP:ALLPLOT, then we are now just hosting non-notable duplicates.
I then checked the previous episode listed in the SotI infobox, which is this Christmas episode. It was nominated for deletion, the AfD closed as redirect to the season article/episode list, but it was recreated not long after. I actually thought this episode might be more notable, as it serves as the introduction of a recurring character, but there are no sources about it. The patent lack of notability and the behavior of multiple editors blatantly ignoring Wikipedia process to ensure these episode articles continue to exist when they know they should not concerns me. Given the subject matter, I also consider that the editors may be young children who simply don't care about rules, and intervention is needed.
Maybe discussion could be had, because several of Spongebob's first season episode articles are GAs (though some of those I would definitely consider for review), but after a point there is no external coverage and so no notability and burning them all seems obvious. The Christmas episode is an interesting case: it falls between some of the GA episodes, making the lack of coverage and notability much more obvious. Link to the navbox for easy access to all episode articles. Kingsif ( talk) 11:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I'm soliciting opinion here – Is this a viable standalone article? Or should it be merged into Beyond the Break. TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we include the soundtrack of a TV show or Webseries in the article like in The Family Man (Indian TV series) and Sacred Games (soundtrack). MOS:TVAVOID says to avoid listing featured music. I’m confused. Can someone guide me here. defcon5 ( talk) 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Turkish actor. I think we have an English language systemic bias. What we have here is a failure to communicate. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
What exactly is this WP's policy on using screenshots of TV show title cards. I'm thinking specifically of this edit which changed a user-created facsimile of the show's title card to an apparent screenshot of the title card. TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to know from the experienced editors if there is any consensus among the editors about dealings with Controversies that some shows run into. Few Indian shows like Tandav, Mirzapur and Paatal Lok have run into some or other controversies recently. And content regarding those cases has been added to the articles in most cases. If there is some controversy around a show, should that be added under a stand-alone section like Controversy or should it be placed under the Reception under a subsection. defcon5 ( talk) 13:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a merge discussion at Talk:List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes#Merger proposal for seasons 3 to 6 if anyone is interested. SL93 ( talk) 11:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I had previously raised this concern at Talk:List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series) episodes#Episode table parameters back in October. Basically, the problem in short, all the table parameters are being entirely misused. For example...:
RTitle
is being used to show episode airdatesProdCode
is being used to show Performer #4Viewers
is being used to show special guests in episodes (if there are any in a certain episode)Aux4
is being used to show episode viewership dataI had tried to see ways it could be fixed on User:Magitroopa/sandbox/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American season 16), but gave up. Revisiting this, I feel like the easiest/best way to fix this would be moving performers/special guests to the summary section, so then the summaries would show performers/special guests and the games performed, then allowing all the parameters to be in the correct locations. Then, the actual episode titles (that can be viewed here) can be used, since titles are not being shown at all (those same episode titles are how episodes are listed on the official website).
Please feel free to let me know if that idea is good, or if there's some better way at handling this. I'll see if I can attempt to fix the tables at some point, but anyone can feel free to themselves if they wish to. One of my main issues with tackling this is that it encompasses all 17 seasons of the American series, not just one season. It also seems like the issue is present at List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (British TV series) episodes. Magitroopa ( talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've currently started a discussion at Template talk:Cite rt#Convert to Citation Style 1 wrapper template to discuss converting the {{ cite rt}} (Rotten Tomatoes) template to a wrapper of {{ cite web}}. Please join the discussion there. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anyone have thoughts on whether TV channels/networks should be included in television filmographies? I don't see these at WP:FILMOGRAPHY, nor do I see them in the various featured lists on actor filmographies. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Noob here... I have 8 episode names for Jon Stewart's early show on MTV, "You Wrote It, You Watch It". The article on the show is currently a stub. What is the method for adding this information to the article?
/info/en/?search=You_Wrote_It,_You_Watch_It
I have the episodes on tape so I know the episode names are correct, however, I don't know the air dates, nor does the show appear to have a production code for each episode. This info seems to be common in episode lists for TV shows on Wikipedia. The recordings do have full credits so key production personnel could be listed/tagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlennie ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, after reading discussions on here, from last fall in November, December, and October, about this topic. It seems that both are pretty similar, as it stands, with none of the sources on the Web TV page, other than those to the seemingly defunct International Academy of Web Television, even using the term, while the streaming tv page seems like it has a stronger basis. It even seems that a good amount of the material on the web tv page would be better served being on the Web series (which links to the web tv page anyway). I did some preliminary searching, and found the term "web television" used by the University of Minnesota Law School, Aymar Jean Christian's book (" Open TV: Innovation beyond Hollywood and the Rise of Web Television") and an article by her using the same term, a mention of web TV in a source within the Library of Congress's Web Archive, and an article in Apple Insider using the term. In contrast, IndieWire, Lifewire, HuffPost, and the Wall Street Journal have used the term, as have articles in Overland journal, and WWD. It has also been used in university events, in books titled Netflix at the Nexus: Content, Practice, and Production in the Age of Streaming Television and The State of Streaming Television: The Shift in Business Models That Will Define the Future of TV, along with by Northwestern University, Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, a honors thesis here, and a masters thesis here. Finally, IGI Global gives a definition of streaming television as "television that digitally distributes its audiovisual content as streaming over the Internet network," which is pretty broad.
In sum, there really isn't a consensus in reliable sources, from what I can find (although my research on this is a very preliminary examination of the subject), over whether to use "web television" or "streaming television," although there seem to be more sources in favor of using the latter term, especially with all the streaming platforms these days. Personally, when creating or updating a page, I tend to not use either one, but with so many pages using the term "web television" ( over 1100 by my count), while about 650 use the term "streaming television" and there being an unsourced List of web television series page, I think there should be some consensus on here what we should do with these pages, whether they should be merged, left alone, or changed in another way, and whether the terms themselves should be used at all (past discussions have seemed to say they shouldn't be used at all).
Anyway, I'd like all your thoughts on this before I propose or change anything on the Web television, Streaming television, or associated pages. Thanks. Historyday01 ( talk) 15:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Collider or Variety. Recently, this edit was processed due to a source on Collider saying the news source can confirm it is "Little Town". However, Variety in this article, says it is "The Little Town" directly from the composer of the series. I was hoping someone could clear up whether which sources are better. Thank you. Starzoner ( talk) 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Web series seem to be served by your project (though do let me know if I'm mistaken), so I'm just dropping a note to invite more participants to the RfCs on renaming two subarticles of the Critical Role webseries.
The two proposals can be found here:
Thanks for looking, (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob ( talk) 13:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have started the discussion about individual winners of The Great British Bake Off at Talk:The Great British Bake Off. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
John Cummings ( talk) 10:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a change/addition to MOS:TV's current 'Cast and characters information' to deal with the situation of "casting announcements" for future or upcoming casting on current TV series. I am posting to WT:TV because it has more page watchers than WT:MOSTV, and will hopefully generate a larger discussion. (I will post a {{ Please see}} to the latter for this discussion.)
I have increasingly noticed the issue/problem of editors adding "upcoming cast" to 'Cast'/'Characters' sections before such people have even appeared on a TV show. We absolutely should not do this, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL, under the general principle of "plans can change". I have absolutely no issue with adding casting announcements (sourced!) to a 'Casting' or 'Production' section – that's what they're there for. But people should not be added to cast sections until they actually appear (and are credited) on the TV show itself.
Thus I propose adding wording along the following lines to the 'Cast and characters information' section of MOS:TV (probably in the fifth paragraph in the section):
Sourced casting announcements should be added to the 'Casting' or 'Production' section, but upcoming cast should not be added to 'Cast' sections until they actually appear and are credited on the series, and are confirmed to appear in the reported role type.
The wording doesn't need to be exactly this – I am open to suggestions for improving this – but something along these lines.
But I have noticed this has increasingly becoming an issue at some of the articles I frequent, like Legacies (TV series) (where we managed to keep this impulse under control) and Big Sky (American TV series) (where I just had to remove almost a dozen listings for people who haven't even appeared on the show yet).
To just buttress the point, there have been numerous instances where "casting announcements" have not come to pass. A recent example was Pandora (TV series), where it was publicly announced that Charisma Carpenter was to be recurring in the show's second season, [1] but then Carpenter was recast with Roxanne McKee with zero public announcements about it – IOW, if someone had added Carpenter to a 'Recurring' cast section for this article before season 2 had premiered, it would have been wrong/inaccurate. I have also seen examples over the years where the entertainment press will report some actor "has been cast in a recurring role for the upcoming season..." of some TV series, only for that actor to appear in only 1 or 2 episodes (and, thus, not be actually "recurring").
Long story short, this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue – a casting announcement is just a casting announcement, and is fine in a 'Production' section, but it's no guarantee that that actor will actually appear in said TV series, or will appear in said TV series in the role as reported. So we should not be adding "cast" to a 'Cast' section until they actually appear, as credited, on the TV series. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
there is no "cast" until something is actually released- that is just not true. People are added to the cast of a film or TV show during pre-production or even earlier, and then they perform during filming. Are you seriously saying it is okay to say someone has been added to the cast for the film when they are cast, but not add them to a list of cast members until the editors of Wikipedia watch the end credits? I really don't understand this line of thought. The cast list is just an easy to read version of the people already discussed in the casting section! - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this needs to be added. If a cast member is reliably sourced to make an upcoming appearance in the series, and many times, but not all, those reports are given once the casting has been made or the actor has already filmed, then it isn't WP:CRYSTAL at that point. Yes, obviously, some things change at various points of production, such as the example given above of someone being cast and then it turned out they didn't portray that role, but I don't see the initial casting news as something we shouldn't accurately state in the cast section, since it was true and accurate at the time of the report. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"...what you are proposing could put articles about shows cancelled before episodes are aired in jeopardy as well."Those articles are generally taken to WP:AFD after the cancellation where they are usually deleted – that's maybe not the best process, but it works. But, again, that has nothing to do with what is being proposed, and is a total sideshow issue. Again, casting announcements properly belong under 'Casting' or 'Production' and no one is saying that shouldn't be done. But no one has come up with a compelling reason why we need to put them in 'Casting' and again in the 'Cast' section before episodes with the crediting to verify the casting info are aired. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Several of the subcategories of Category:Television shows based on comics are up for discussion to be renamed to harmonize their names from "Television series based on..." to "Television shows based on..." per the parent cat name and the other subcategories. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force § Project scope question.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
An AfD for List of media portrayals of bisexuality is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media portrayals of bisexuality and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Crossroads -talk- 17:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
A proposed merger of the Web television page into the Streaming television page is located at Talk:Web television#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 14:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
On episode lists, has there ever been consensus on when storyboard artists are worth listing in episode tables? I wasn't able to find one. This was spurred by The Simpsons (season 1), where they're currently being awkwardly stuffed into the "written by" column, even though storyboarding has nothing to do with writing on The Simpsons. (Of course, it isn't like that for every animated show, which is why I went looking, but came up empty-handed.) Nohomersryan ( talk) 04:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Aux3
?) column. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
05:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Alright, that seems like decent enough consensus that they shouldn't be there in this case. Took 'em out. Nohomersryan ( talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
A proposed merger of the LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages is located at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Historyday01 ( talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I was looking at Template:U.S. regional sports networks and am wondering why the following college sports conference networks are not included in the template: ACC Network, Big Ten Network, MountainWest Sports Network, Pac-12 Network, & SEC Network as well as the Longhorn Network.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
If an actor is credited as a special guest star on the on-screen credits, is in appropriate to list the actor under "Special guest star" subsection of the "Cast and characters" section? Keep in mind that the actor is not credited with the regular guest starring/recurring cast. An editor claimed it is not appropriate and should just be labeled as "Guest star" or "Guest role" as a subsection of the "Cast and characters" section. — YoungForever (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
add anyone who isn't recurring to the "Guest starring" list.— YoungForever (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A user at Talk:26th Critics' Choice Awards recently proposed a merger for the 11th Critics' Choice Television Awards into the 26th Critics' Choice Awards, pointing out that the two events are really the same ceremony. It seems that in the past, the ceremonies were separate, but this is no longer the case. I would appreciate it if more people could take a look at the issue on the talk page, since a merger would set a standard not just for this year's ceremony, but for past ceremonies as well, and given that the events started separate and merged later, it is unclear how they should be kept now. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Firefly Lane § Special guest star vs. guest star. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. —
YoungForever
(talk)
14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Just a note that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment is maxed out by template limits, and is listed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Need help in archiving sections of the page, thanks! Funandtrvl ( talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion is made at Talk:List of American Idol finalists#Insufficient amount of sources? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:Star Wars spinoffs has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Back in December, I thought it was a good idea to split off a section from the Adult animation page. Then, that page seemed too wordy so I split off content related to the U.S. in a page titled Adult animation in the United States. From there, I decided to split the page yet again to the Adult animated television series in the United States. Perhaps that was too hasty, but that's a whole other discussion. Recently I was looking at the latter page and shaking my head. I'd still like to keep the page, if possible, but it's also overly wordy. That is, admittedly, my fault, and I've made it worse. Anyway, I'd like help with cutting the content down, spinning off parts of the page to appropriate pages, and so on. I would even venture that the whole page itself needs to be redone, but I'm just not sure how to proceed. So, that's why I'm posting about it here. Any suggestions and help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a
Red
link in the template "{{
Former TLC Programming}}".
I mentioned it (including some "ideas" for ... what to do about it) here:
Any advice? or other comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 07:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It appears this series is in development hell, having been scheduled to begin shooting some time ago but run into trouble, but someone inappropriately placed an article on it in the mainspace. I personally think that long-planned and/or cancelled shows and movies, if the sources are there, are more meriting of standalone articles than released shows and movies that there's nothing encyclopedic to write about, but this doesn't appear to be either, and even if it were the former I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. I considered redirecting it, but can't think of a good target: what do folks here think should be done about it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
TV6 (Malaysia) is a TV channel launching next week. The articl about it has been the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI#TV6 (Malaysia). Main problem is that notability is not established as the article is unreferenced. Any members of this WP willing to try to save it from deletion? Mjroots ( talk) 17:17, 2 March 2021 (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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 39 |
Are there any good examples of a well-crafted "List of programs broadcast by <network name>"? I just need one or two. Alternatively, an example or two of a decent TV network article that might also include programming tables. I have an issue at Surya TV and I don't think the other editor has likely seen what a quality article of this sort is supposed to look like. This one has a weird # of episodes column with content like "207+/1353". ??? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 19:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Upcoming redirects. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Upcoming redirects until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
YoungForever
(talk)
17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, Game of Thrones has an open peer review subpage in preparation for a possible featured article nomination, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Game of Thrones/archive5. Of course, any comments and feedback to improve the article are welcome and encouraged. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
With TVbythenumbers dead and Programming Insider not publishing any DVR ratings data since August 15 there's nothing to put in them. Variety seem to be completely random when they do releases and even then those are for broadcast shows and not cable. There's no other source online as far as I know which publishes these numbers.
Without wanting to sound like I'm rambling should tables with at least five or six weeks of no DVR numbers be deleted or hidden? Nielsen releases these numbers weekly but if no website can be bothered to publish why clutter pages with empty DVR tables? 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 13:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Please see this discussion, thanks. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 15:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Rodzinka.pl is a new article accepted at AfC today. A lot of cleanup has been done but there are some outstanding tasks that need to be completed. The first is the infobox, which appears to have been copied straight from the Polish Wikipedia. I have moved the Polish text to the talk page since I don't understand Polish (ironic since my dearly departed wife of 35 years was Polish) and I have replaced it with our infobox. The article needs various fixes in other areas as well but the biggest problem is the Polish infobox. Help fixing this would be appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following matter: Talk:Legend of the Seeker#Craig Parker's Billing Status.
Favre1fan93, Masem, Bignole, and/or Alex 21, can we get your help on this on the article talk page? Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 19:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Note: I removed the text, it was a copy of the official web site.
Anyone from Canada familiar with this show? Is it notable?
It has supposedly won "Best Performance Children's or Youth Non-Fiction Program or Series Best Performance Children's or Youth Fiction Program or Series" but there's no citation, and the official web site doesn't make that claim.
If it's a no-name TV show I'll reject the draft outright even though it hasn't been submitted yet. If the topic might be notable, then please help improve the draft.
By the way, the publicity image in the draft and other publicity images uploaded by the uploader to the Commons are likely copyright violations, I've tagged them as such, so they will probably disappear in a week. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
For editors in the group, we need help to complete the change of color template design in all articles so that it will reflect the way it currently presented in the post-ABC era ( season 16 and later). Up until now, most editors had done most of the maintenance work but up until the pre-live show stage on August (for season 4), and no work has done yet up until now. If you are seeing this, please help do your best to make it consistent and help with the updates of the color schemes. This goes the same for the other seasons until season 15 (the pre-FOX era) as well, and other Idol season as well.
The color design was more contrast and bright, and so far it has been used in other shows such as SPOP Sing! (season 1) (so far only one show has done that using the template, for the record). The reason for the change is because that the blue box saying elimination and the gray header are not properly contrast and a bold typeface is heavily used for elimination. The colorful design is much more appealing, appropriate, and consistent like the one used for displaying results in other singing reality shows such as The Voice (American TV series) and The X Factor (British TV series).
I just want to look for editors to help because I (plus some other editors) am busy. Thanks for lending a hand. TVSGuy ( talk) 09:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Though this might be more of a biographical question, but when do we typically add a future television event to someone's filmography? If an actor is slated to appear in a film, we typically don't add that credit until filming begins. For television work, do we add that when they start taping, or once the thing airs? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
{{ Infobox television}} list_episodes current says:
Anyone object to adding:
Please also contribute to the discussion on the policy that currently says avoid links to sections of an article from its Infobox.
Jim Craigie ( talk) 13:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:F Is for Family § Rename. The discussion concerns the use of "Is" vs. "is" in the article's title, quoting
MOS:CT. -- /
Alex/
21
22:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Editors may want to keep an eye on Mars University. Earlier today an editor unilaterally changed the content of the article (about an episode of Futurama) to instead discuss an academic institution. Another editor subsequently nominated the article for speedy deletion as they felt the new content was promotional; I'm assuming they didn't realize that content was new and had nothing to do with the article's stable content. I've deleted the speedy notice and advised the first editor that that kind of wholesale change to an article's content is inappropriate. Cheers. DonIago ( talk) 03:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Would appreciate some comments on ScreenPlay on whether to use a "custom" episode table (as is currently used), or use one using the standard television templates, which can be seen on this version. Please also note that the current table was changed 2 days ago meaning that it itself isn't the status-quo either. There are some disagreements on the usage, which is why I'd appreciate other opinions. -- Gonnym ( talk) 14:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Old revision of ScreenPlay contains a table of plays, not a list of episodes: there in not a one-to-one correspondence. A single sortable table is useful in drama anthologies to allow readers to group plays by playwright or director or title over the whole table.
The list is probably currently incomplete.
The BBC did not assign any public numbering to the plays or episodes.
Unfortunately {{ Episode list}} is unsuitable for this list because:
Jim Craigie ( talk) 16:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
|list_episodes=
is used, so saying these are not episodes yet using the parameter which calls these episodes is contradicting. Secondly, a television series is made up of episodes. The fact that the BBC did not assign episode numbers is irrelevant. The numbers represent the broadcast order, which is the default order we list these things. In cases where we list them based on a different order, that is noted in the article. Seeing how the order is the broadcast order (based on the date value), then the numbering is correct. "What links here" only shows anchor links from Redirect pages, not from articles, so it is next to impossible to maintain links to anchors that are likely to changewhich is why MOS:REDIR says to use redirects rather than direct links with "#" targets. I also love how the terminology is so important to you, saying
contains a table of plays, not a list of episodes, yet all the redirects you created, such as Available Light (1990 film), are disambiguated with "film". So are these plays or films? Anyways, it's also besides the point, as if these plays, or films, were created for a single series and broadcast as part of entries in a season, then calling them episodes is perfectly fine. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Template:Netflix original ended series. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Template:Netflix original ended series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —
YoungForever
(talk)
14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I am an active user on the Spanish Wikipedia, but a few weeks ago I started a full translation of an article to upgrade it. It is the one about the Chilean TV series 31 minutos, and reviewing the rating given to it (the year 2009, when it barely gave simple descriptions), I don't think it is fair considering the time elapsed and the current state of the article. As I have already mentioned, I am not very active in the English Wikipedia (and in fact, I do not handle the language well either), but I wanted to ask anyway if it is possible to re-evaluate the article. Even in the Spanish version it is a good article, so I have no doubt that this one can be too, if given a grammar and spelling check. I'm looking forward to the answer, thanks. -- TheUser41 ( talk) 15:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@ IJBall: Yes, I was referring to that evaluation. I agree to keep it in 'C' class for the time being, thank you very much for updating it. -- TheUser41 ( talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts on the Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons and Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons: The Movie articles? Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons started out as a web series, but it only released one episode before the entire content was released as a movie, and the series isn't going ahead anymore. Should the former article be merged into the latter? -- / Alex/ 21 01:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion regarding the notability of the individual episode articles for The Mandalorian that are being created. Wanted to make the larger TV project aware of this. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Mandalorian#Episodes articles. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Nikki and Paulo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have submitted this new draft today and also the other article with the maximum number of references I can afford to and also while following all Wikipedia guidelines for a Wikipedia article. I request the senior Wikipedian Gods please do look into this article and give in your valuable permission for these articles. -- Aleyamma38 ( talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I've started a stub for a missing article at Flesh and Blood. I'm basically retired from Wikipedia and I don't intend to continue working on it. It would be great if someone could expand it. There is talk of a second season being produced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Bear Witness, Take Action § Request Edit November 19th.
Oceans87 (
talk)
19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Vikings: Valhalla was created last month and is in need of further eyes to clean it up; I've tried my best to make it encyclopedic, but some of the language was not worthy of a WP:TV article. -- / Alex/ 21 00:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Question about MOS:TVCHARACTER. I would appreciate it if more WP:TV regulars would take a look at this discussion, and weigh in on the proper use (or not!) of bolding at our List of Characters (LoC) articles, and whether MOS:TV should be revised about this. Thank you --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
The following IP users have edited the page Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous to repeatedly add the same false information:
|
|
All of these IP-accounts are from Italy, meaning that they are either (1) bots, (2) trolls from Italy / trolls using a VPN, or (3) some lonely person with multiple devices just spam editing on Wikipedia. Should a protection template be added, and if so, can an admin add one? Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) § Wear Your Magazine quote. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion as well the discussion below it. —
YoungForever
(talk)
15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Quatermass and the Pit is the oldest unreviewed featured article—last reviewed in 2004. It still looks good to me, but I don't watch TV at all, much less British TV or science fiction. Please provide feedback at Talk:Quatermass and the Pit#WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
FTR, it looks to me like Making Waves (TV series) is a much bigger problem than any of the Quatermass WP:FAs. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
You know, looking that this list, and this one, there are remarkably few TV series articles WP:FAs (and a lot of the former ones have been delisted). (There are way more TV episode FAs in comparison.) I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just noting it. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I've got a problem here – I boldly merged this article back to ThunderCats (2011 TV series), as we don't do LoE article for single-season (just 26 episodes) TV series as per long-standing WP:TV practice (as per MOS:TVSPLIT), but the merge was reverted. Would others around her like to explain to Dream Focus how this is done?
And, yes – the episode summaries are actually too long – I was going to {{ Long plot}} tag that section before I was reverted. (Note that the LoE article is 72 kB even with the too long episode summaries, and a summary table that violates WP:TVOVERVIEW.) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys. I plan to nominate " The Boys in the Bar" as Featured Article candidate. Honestly, I hope the article becomes my first Featured Article. First, I must improve the article to help it meet featured article criteria. I started the similar discussion earlier this year but haven't yet received replies at Talk:The Boys in the Bar. -- George Ho ( talk) 09:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020.
TheDoctorWho
(talk)
20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey there I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It raises the question of whether MOS:BIO should include clear criteria about what sort of awards to include in actor biographies. Please comment if you are interested! Thanks. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I need some pairs of eyes on the article. A fairly newbie editor have been repeatedly moving The Vow (TV series) to The Vow NXIVM Documentary (TV series). The page move is unwarranted because reliable sources throughout the article are only referring as "The Vow", including official press releases directly from WarnerMedia's Press and the official title card. "NXIVM Documentary" isn't even part of the title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should be common names. — YoungForever (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive3. Thanks,
Heartfox (
talk)
07:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Was checking over the List of human characters in Sesame Street & related bio articles. What exactly is their status now. Are they retired from the show or not? GoodDay ( talk) 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Recently saw the addition of MouthShut.com to the External Links of TV Articles along with IMDB links. Does this violate MOS:TVEXLINKS defcon5 ( talk) 09:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey all, are there any style guidelines for Big Brother/Bigg Boss-style reality shows? An editor brought Bigg Boss (Tamil season 4) to my attention and there are what I assume to be some serious WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, mostly with smooshed fonts, and especially in the Bigg Boss (Tamil season 4)#Nominations table, which is very difficult to read. Is there an "ideal" for what these pages should look like? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 20:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
"Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook)."So under no circumstances is "60%" font size "OK". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Are hatnotes, particularly when a season has ended and it says "for the recent season, see..." proper? I don't know why that's necessary like... does that just stay there forever? I believe they perhaps have some helpfulness when a season is actually airing and readers may want a quick link to the season article if they happened to be on the series page, but are they really necessary after a season has ended?? What I'm seeing per WP:RELATED is that "They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic." Would the "specific aspect" here be the season article link? What's the/is there a consensus on the use of hatnotes? Heartfox ( talk) 20:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the ideal way to format the show title Hero – Gayab Mode On?
Something else? Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
When writing the runtime of a TV show in an article, do we write the time based on a single segment or two segments which most episodes have? Wubzy ( talk) 06:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
184.160.70.92 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started 10 drafts in the last week. I can't tell if these are notable or not.
It would be helpful if someone familiar with Canadian TV would put a note on each talk page saying if the person is clearly notable, maybe, or clearly not notable. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 🎄 19:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I have a question - I recently created an article for the episode Pure, which was the season finale of Into the Dark. I was planning on returning to it and fleshing it out more, but at that point in time the article was just sections on plot, cast, and a reception section. The episode had reviews from multiple reliable sources, many of which are fairly notable media outlets. For example, there were reviews from RogerEbert.com, Vulture, /Film, io9, The Verge, and The Daily Dot and there was other light coverage from outlets like Bloody Disgusting, TheWrap, and JoBlo.com. Alex_21 moved this to the draftspace and returned the article to a redirect, arguing that the reviews would not be enough to establish notability and that the current state wouldn't be enough, as this was the policy of the notability guidelines for television episodes.
I don't see where this is mentioned, but I did want to ask here to be certain. If I am wrong then I will make sure that I have more sections and content before moving work live. If it does, then this does feel a bit contrary to WP:GNG, as this would otherwise pass notability guidelines and would certainly pass WP:NFILM, which I do think should be considered for feature length film anthology series like this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 03:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the current state of Pure (Into the Dark) shows that the threshold for notability of TV episodes that Alex21, IJBall and others are talking about should be enforced. It gave ReaderofthePack the impulse to vastly improve it, to the point that's good enough to be in the mainspace. El Millo ( talk) 08:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." (emphasis mine)The crux of the question is what actually defines "significant coverage". That's where the disagreement comes in. If you create a TV episode article, and your only sourcing is reviews from iO9 and The Daily Dot, and a Rotten Tomatoes summary page, then, no – I am going to say that the "significant coverage" benchmark is clearly not met by that, and I'm going to vote "delete" at AfD, or state that the article should be taken to Draft. Now, if you have an article on a TV episode, and its only sourcing is 4 reviews, and they're from, say, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, TVLine and Bloody Disgusting, then that is a lot closer to clearing WP:GNG outright. And if the reviews include Variety- or The Hollywood Reporter-level reviews, then, yes – it almost certainly clears WP:GNG on that alone (even probably without a 'Production' section, though if it's getting reviewed in Variety, then production info is almost certainly out there too). So, no – I don't accept Toughpigs's original contention – if the article had just those review sources, and no 'Production' section, it shouldn't be an article in mainspace. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Per this diff, I recall that there was an earlier discussion and found this discussion related to "web television" and getting rid of that. On getting rid of web television, that absolutely makes sense, but the fact this is leaving behind "streaming television" I think is just as bad. A television series is a television series regardless if is streams or broadcasts. We don't identify books as "ebooks" if they are only released electronically; its still a book in all forms. A TV series is the same way. That it was on a streaming service first should be obvious from identifying the first broadcast home but after that, it could go to a home video release or release in other formats at which point calling it a "streaming television" series becomes nonsense. This also just adds too much genre/type kudzo to these programs. Like films, TV shows should be identified by at most two primary genres, and if there are other genres that play into it, that can be described later.
I think the concern from the past discussion is that you do want to distinguish web media-based shows that do not broadcast or go to a subscription-based service (something like Hot Ones) which is a web series, compared to shows that, yes, you may be able to get via the web, but are meant to be treated as television programs from both production and broadcast approaches (eg Netflix/Hulu/Amazon original programming). The fact that there's no distinguishing these anymore at the Emmys should be a sign that we should not be treating these differently from other broadcast series. -- Masem ( t) 05:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
"The Society is an American mystery teen drama television series created by Christopher Keyser, that was released via streaming on Netflix on May 10, 2019."formulation for ledes of these kinds of shows – it avoids the whole "streaming television" issue. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
So besides the fact that there may be instances where it is unclear if something is a web series (which will probably need to be determined at those article's talk pages), is there agreement here that we don't want to be encouraging the use of "streaming television series"? - adamstom97 ( talk) 23:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
"The Society is an American mystery teen drama television series created by Christopher Keyser, that was released via streaming on Netflix on May 10, 2019."– I'm not going to say "streaming television" is "wrong" in the way that "web television" clearly was (as a WP:OR WP:NEOLOGISM only used on Wikipedia). IOW, I don't think as a WP we really need to be "prescriptive" about this – editors at the various articles can figure out what they want. I don't think this WP should say either way is "right" or "wrong" or "preferred". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There is an ANI report you may be interested in: Disruptive user seemingly not understanding. A lot of their edits need to be reformatted. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 22:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
{{ Game Show Network}} has been revamped to be in chronological order, like most other channel/network navboxes such as the slightly larger {{ Adult Swim original programming}}. I feel like all the navboxes of this type should be formatted like this, when not subdivided like {{ Nickelodeon original series}}/{{ Former Nickelodeon original series}}/{{ Nickelodeon Network Game Shows}}/{{ Nickelodeon Original Movies}}. Should the years also be made small, like in {{ BET}}?
I may experiment with colors as well, to match the channel colors (e.g. white on light blue and reddish-orange for GSN, as seen in the current logo). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I work for The First TV ( Bill O'Reilly's new network). I've created a draft for The First, which can be found at Draft:The First TV. I don't want to move the draft to mainspace on my own, because I have a conflict of interest and want to respect the process and the community. Would someone consider taking a look at the draft? If you think it merits inclusion, I think it would benefit being moved to mainspace. Thanks! D00dadays ( talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
ViacomCBS employees pressure Pluto TV to stop streaming new Bill O'Reilly showand
ViacomCBS Put 'I Can't Breathe' on Its Networks, Still Gives New Bill O'Reilly Show a Platformas evidence of notability and also exclude the majority of those sources' information.
After starting a cleanup of the episode list on Weinerville, I think a tracking category is needed for episode lists that do not use {{ Episode table}} formatting. It would have its own small ambox. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Is there also a way to track which articles have 'Series overview' tables which are not using the {{ Series overview}} template? This would also be useful information to have. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone think of any examples of quality articles that have a short premise summary like what I see at Northern Rescue, but that also have expanded season summaries like what I'd find at Veronica Mars? I am having trouble finding an article that has both. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not one that normally cares about the aesthetics of Wikipedia's templates so long as it is functional and coherent. However, the series overview template has always appeared very unprofessional to me, or at the very least, has some oversights. The issue I see is that it dedicates an entire cell just to be an empty and solid color. If the goal is just to be more aesthetically recognizable for each season, I think there is a better way to convey that than to just create an empty cell. Below, there is an example of making the template more aesthetically pleasing.
Original | Proposed redesign
|
What do you think? Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not against an update to this template if we can come up with a better option, but looking at these two options above, I prefer the current format. The larger block of colour is easier to see in my opinion, and the whole point is to see the colours to help differentiate each season. I also think it makes sense to have the colour under the season header since the colour is associated with the season itself (as seen in {{ Episode table}} and {{ Infobox television season}}).
If we just want to avoid having a separate cell for the colour, how about something like this?
adamstom97 proposal
|
I think this proposal aligns more with the other templates mentioned than Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal does. - adamstom97 ( talk) 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps just making the colored cell a bit smaller (but not as small as Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal) would make it look more "professional". El Millo ( talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Can't we just remove the colors? Do they really serve a purpose? El Millo ( talk) 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't personally feel there's any need for a redesign, and would be against Adam's given it would be difficult to see what is and isn't links. However, if any is being considered, I understand what Blue Pumpkin Pie was going for in their proposal, but to keep things in the same order as now, I would suggest we just reduce the color column size from what it currently is, rather than move it after the season number and as a line width coloring. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Could anyone offer an addition set of eyes on this article? I have concerns regarding material not being supported by the citations provided, but my efforts to tag or resolve these issues have been reverted. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The user Historyday01 has been going around to various articles on animated TV series and adding large sections about LGBTQ representation and/or views. ( typical example) I can see that for some shows that's a big part of the discourse about the show, but for others, it just isn't. If such matters are tangential to the show's general reception, perhaps being only mentioned in niche or low-quality sources, they should not be given WP:Undue weight. The same applies to any minority group, of course. I think for some of these shows it needs to be reverted, and people more familiar with them can take a look for themselves.
A lot of this material appears to be largely copied from specialized articles they have basically written, like LGBTQ representation in adult animation. If an article like that has a paragraph or two about a show, that makes sense, but lifting that amount of material into the article on the show itself is not appropriate. Crossroads -talk- 23:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Gen. Quon came here to say that to me after Historyday01 decided to start shit-talking me and Crossroads to him. This isn't a playground where you can gossip with your friends then run over to be mean to the kids they don't like. Kingsif ( talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey all, I'm looking at Dan Levy (Canadian actor). Do individuals usually have "Outstanding Comedy Series" in their award listings? I mean, obviously he was a contributor, but it seems like the award belongs to the show, not the individual. Similarly, do show articles get to brag about Best Actor awards? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 01:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a disagreement on noted guest appearance on this page history. According to IMDB, before they were main cast members, Lisa Rinna had a credited guest appearance on season 4 episode 10, and Denise Richards had a credited guest appearance on season 5 episode 11. A user keeps deleting this source and removing the appearance from the cast timeline. They say this is not IMDB and these should not be included. If they were credited, then we should note that. Any advise on where to go from here? Thanks! Ev Thom ( talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
An editor decided to make episode articles for every episode of season 1 so far. I skimmed through each of the episode articles and none of them even pass WP:GNG, maybe just the first episode. Everything is already covered on the Episode table. The production section of each of the individual episode article only consist who wrote and directed the episode. Reception only include WP:UGC, specifically IMDb which isn't even appropriate to use. I see nothing new on the individual episode articles. Can editors who are familiar with individual episode articles weigh in on this? — YoungForever (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this an appropriate standalone article?! It was a one-off broadcast (at least, as of now). I could see merging some of that content to Nickelodeon, but I really can't see the justification for an entire article on a single broadcast like this... Thoughts? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Awikiuserintheworld brought the website [3] to my attention. I'm curious what folks think about it as RS. From what I can tell, it's based in Canada and is not WP:SPS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is. The dates may be wrong, but otherwise the episodes are correct. Oh, and the seasons are wrong. Awikiuserintheworld (talk)
Further to the discussion of individual episode article notability above, I thought I'd bring to discussion the episode articles for SpongeBob SquarePants which are either not Wikiproject-tagged or only WP Animation-tagged, so they wouldn't necessarily be noticed. But for the purposes of episode broadcast, they come under television guidelines.
" Survival of the Idiots" was recently created and I PROD'ed it for non-notability through new page review, since it is almost entirely a plot summary and at the time the only other sources was direct from Nickelodeon saying it was broadcast and included on a DVD. This is basically saying that it exists, which is not notable. The article creator removed the PROD with the reason that it was notable, no evidence provided (I know anyone can remove a PROD, but when they are so obviously ignoring concerns just to stop a speedy delete that doesn't come under an easy category it's plain insulting to Wikipedia process). They then seem to have scoured the internet for any other source and added IMDb ratings and appearance on a Screen Rant list. We all know the IMDb guidelines. SR is an RS, a little more reliable than Buzzfeed but in the same realm - I use it, but as supplemental, and I think anyone who knows media sources would agree that coverage on SR doesn't automatically denote notability, and, moreover, that an episode only being covered outside of publication on a rank list of its season's episodes, unless it's an exceptionally good source, isn't a metric of notability. Most recently, a note was added that the entire plot description is copied from Fandom wiki. If this is the case for all the Spongebob episodes, which are almost all WP:ALLPLOT, then we are now just hosting non-notable duplicates.
I then checked the previous episode listed in the SotI infobox, which is this Christmas episode. It was nominated for deletion, the AfD closed as redirect to the season article/episode list, but it was recreated not long after. I actually thought this episode might be more notable, as it serves as the introduction of a recurring character, but there are no sources about it. The patent lack of notability and the behavior of multiple editors blatantly ignoring Wikipedia process to ensure these episode articles continue to exist when they know they should not concerns me. Given the subject matter, I also consider that the editors may be young children who simply don't care about rules, and intervention is needed.
Maybe discussion could be had, because several of Spongebob's first season episode articles are GAs (though some of those I would definitely consider for review), but after a point there is no external coverage and so no notability and burning them all seems obvious. The Christmas episode is an interesting case: it falls between some of the GA episodes, making the lack of coverage and notability much more obvious. Link to the navbox for easy access to all episode articles. Kingsif ( talk) 11:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I'm soliciting opinion here – Is this a viable standalone article? Or should it be merged into Beyond the Break. TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we include the soundtrack of a TV show or Webseries in the article like in The Family Man (Indian TV series) and Sacred Games (soundtrack). MOS:TVAVOID says to avoid listing featured music. I’m confused. Can someone guide me here. defcon5 ( talk) 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Turkish actor. I think we have an English language systemic bias. What we have here is a failure to communicate. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
What exactly is this WP's policy on using screenshots of TV show title cards. I'm thinking specifically of this edit which changed a user-created facsimile of the show's title card to an apparent screenshot of the title card. TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to know from the experienced editors if there is any consensus among the editors about dealings with Controversies that some shows run into. Few Indian shows like Tandav, Mirzapur and Paatal Lok have run into some or other controversies recently. And content regarding those cases has been added to the articles in most cases. If there is some controversy around a show, should that be added under a stand-alone section like Controversy or should it be placed under the Reception under a subsection. defcon5 ( talk) 13:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a merge discussion at Talk:List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes#Merger proposal for seasons 3 to 6 if anyone is interested. SL93 ( talk) 11:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I had previously raised this concern at Talk:List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series) episodes#Episode table parameters back in October. Basically, the problem in short, all the table parameters are being entirely misused. For example...:
RTitle
is being used to show episode airdatesProdCode
is being used to show Performer #4Viewers
is being used to show special guests in episodes (if there are any in a certain episode)Aux4
is being used to show episode viewership dataI had tried to see ways it could be fixed on User:Magitroopa/sandbox/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American season 16), but gave up. Revisiting this, I feel like the easiest/best way to fix this would be moving performers/special guests to the summary section, so then the summaries would show performers/special guests and the games performed, then allowing all the parameters to be in the correct locations. Then, the actual episode titles (that can be viewed here) can be used, since titles are not being shown at all (those same episode titles are how episodes are listed on the official website).
Please feel free to let me know if that idea is good, or if there's some better way at handling this. I'll see if I can attempt to fix the tables at some point, but anyone can feel free to themselves if they wish to. One of my main issues with tackling this is that it encompasses all 17 seasons of the American series, not just one season. It also seems like the issue is present at List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (British TV series) episodes. Magitroopa ( talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've currently started a discussion at Template talk:Cite rt#Convert to Citation Style 1 wrapper template to discuss converting the {{ cite rt}} (Rotten Tomatoes) template to a wrapper of {{ cite web}}. Please join the discussion there. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Anyone have thoughts on whether TV channels/networks should be included in television filmographies? I don't see these at WP:FILMOGRAPHY, nor do I see them in the various featured lists on actor filmographies. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Noob here... I have 8 episode names for Jon Stewart's early show on MTV, "You Wrote It, You Watch It". The article on the show is currently a stub. What is the method for adding this information to the article?
/info/en/?search=You_Wrote_It,_You_Watch_It
I have the episodes on tape so I know the episode names are correct, however, I don't know the air dates, nor does the show appear to have a production code for each episode. This info seems to be common in episode lists for TV shows on Wikipedia. The recordings do have full credits so key production personnel could be listed/tagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlennie ( talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, after reading discussions on here, from last fall in November, December, and October, about this topic. It seems that both are pretty similar, as it stands, with none of the sources on the Web TV page, other than those to the seemingly defunct International Academy of Web Television, even using the term, while the streaming tv page seems like it has a stronger basis. It even seems that a good amount of the material on the web tv page would be better served being on the Web series (which links to the web tv page anyway). I did some preliminary searching, and found the term "web television" used by the University of Minnesota Law School, Aymar Jean Christian's book (" Open TV: Innovation beyond Hollywood and the Rise of Web Television") and an article by her using the same term, a mention of web TV in a source within the Library of Congress's Web Archive, and an article in Apple Insider using the term. In contrast, IndieWire, Lifewire, HuffPost, and the Wall Street Journal have used the term, as have articles in Overland journal, and WWD. It has also been used in university events, in books titled Netflix at the Nexus: Content, Practice, and Production in the Age of Streaming Television and The State of Streaming Television: The Shift in Business Models That Will Define the Future of TV, along with by Northwestern University, Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, a honors thesis here, and a masters thesis here. Finally, IGI Global gives a definition of streaming television as "television that digitally distributes its audiovisual content as streaming over the Internet network," which is pretty broad.
In sum, there really isn't a consensus in reliable sources, from what I can find (although my research on this is a very preliminary examination of the subject), over whether to use "web television" or "streaming television," although there seem to be more sources in favor of using the latter term, especially with all the streaming platforms these days. Personally, when creating or updating a page, I tend to not use either one, but with so many pages using the term "web television" ( over 1100 by my count), while about 650 use the term "streaming television" and there being an unsourced List of web television series page, I think there should be some consensus on here what we should do with these pages, whether they should be merged, left alone, or changed in another way, and whether the terms themselves should be used at all (past discussions have seemed to say they shouldn't be used at all).
Anyway, I'd like all your thoughts on this before I propose or change anything on the Web television, Streaming television, or associated pages. Thanks. Historyday01 ( talk) 15:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Collider or Variety. Recently, this edit was processed due to a source on Collider saying the news source can confirm it is "Little Town". However, Variety in this article, says it is "The Little Town" directly from the composer of the series. I was hoping someone could clear up whether which sources are better. Thank you. Starzoner ( talk) 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Web series seem to be served by your project (though do let me know if I'm mistaken), so I'm just dropping a note to invite more participants to the RfCs on renaming two subarticles of the Critical Role webseries.
The two proposals can be found here:
Thanks for looking, (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob ( talk) 13:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I have started the discussion about individual winners of The Great British Bake Off at Talk:The Great British Bake Off. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
John Cummings ( talk) 10:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a change/addition to MOS:TV's current 'Cast and characters information' to deal with the situation of "casting announcements" for future or upcoming casting on current TV series. I am posting to WT:TV because it has more page watchers than WT:MOSTV, and will hopefully generate a larger discussion. (I will post a {{ Please see}} to the latter for this discussion.)
I have increasingly noticed the issue/problem of editors adding "upcoming cast" to 'Cast'/'Characters' sections before such people have even appeared on a TV show. We absolutely should not do this, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL, under the general principle of "plans can change". I have absolutely no issue with adding casting announcements (sourced!) to a 'Casting' or 'Production' section – that's what they're there for. But people should not be added to cast sections until they actually appear (and are credited) on the TV show itself.
Thus I propose adding wording along the following lines to the 'Cast and characters information' section of MOS:TV (probably in the fifth paragraph in the section):
Sourced casting announcements should be added to the 'Casting' or 'Production' section, but upcoming cast should not be added to 'Cast' sections until they actually appear and are credited on the series, and are confirmed to appear in the reported role type.
The wording doesn't need to be exactly this – I am open to suggestions for improving this – but something along these lines.
But I have noticed this has increasingly becoming an issue at some of the articles I frequent, like Legacies (TV series) (where we managed to keep this impulse under control) and Big Sky (American TV series) (where I just had to remove almost a dozen listings for people who haven't even appeared on the show yet).
To just buttress the point, there have been numerous instances where "casting announcements" have not come to pass. A recent example was Pandora (TV series), where it was publicly announced that Charisma Carpenter was to be recurring in the show's second season, [1] but then Carpenter was recast with Roxanne McKee with zero public announcements about it – IOW, if someone had added Carpenter to a 'Recurring' cast section for this article before season 2 had premiered, it would have been wrong/inaccurate. I have also seen examples over the years where the entertainment press will report some actor "has been cast in a recurring role for the upcoming season..." of some TV series, only for that actor to appear in only 1 or 2 episodes (and, thus, not be actually "recurring").
Long story short, this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue – a casting announcement is just a casting announcement, and is fine in a 'Production' section, but it's no guarantee that that actor will actually appear in said TV series, or will appear in said TV series in the role as reported. So we should not be adding "cast" to a 'Cast' section until they actually appear, as credited, on the TV series. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
there is no "cast" until something is actually released- that is just not true. People are added to the cast of a film or TV show during pre-production or even earlier, and then they perform during filming. Are you seriously saying it is okay to say someone has been added to the cast for the film when they are cast, but not add them to a list of cast members until the editors of Wikipedia watch the end credits? I really don't understand this line of thought. The cast list is just an easy to read version of the people already discussed in the casting section! - adamstom97 ( talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this needs to be added. If a cast member is reliably sourced to make an upcoming appearance in the series, and many times, but not all, those reports are given once the casting has been made or the actor has already filmed, then it isn't WP:CRYSTAL at that point. Yes, obviously, some things change at various points of production, such as the example given above of someone being cast and then it turned out they didn't portray that role, but I don't see the initial casting news as something we shouldn't accurately state in the cast section, since it was true and accurate at the time of the report. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
"...what you are proposing could put articles about shows cancelled before episodes are aired in jeopardy as well."Those articles are generally taken to WP:AFD after the cancellation where they are usually deleted – that's maybe not the best process, but it works. But, again, that has nothing to do with what is being proposed, and is a total sideshow issue. Again, casting announcements properly belong under 'Casting' or 'Production' and no one is saying that shouldn't be done. But no one has come up with a compelling reason why we need to put them in 'Casting' and again in the 'Cast' section before episodes with the crediting to verify the casting info are aired. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Several of the subcategories of Category:Television shows based on comics are up for discussion to be renamed to harmonize their names from "Television series based on..." to "Television shows based on..." per the parent cat name and the other subcategories. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 00:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force § Project scope question.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
An AfD for List of media portrayals of bisexuality is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media portrayals of bisexuality and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Crossroads -talk- 17:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
A proposed merger of the Web television page into the Streaming television page is located at Talk:Web television#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 14:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
On episode lists, has there ever been consensus on when storyboard artists are worth listing in episode tables? I wasn't able to find one. This was spurred by The Simpsons (season 1), where they're currently being awkwardly stuffed into the "written by" column, even though storyboarding has nothing to do with writing on The Simpsons. (Of course, it isn't like that for every animated show, which is why I went looking, but came up empty-handed.) Nohomersryan ( talk) 04:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Aux3
?) column. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
05:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Alright, that seems like decent enough consensus that they shouldn't be there in this case. Took 'em out. Nohomersryan ( talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
A proposed merger of the LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages is located at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Historyday01 ( talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I was looking at Template:U.S. regional sports networks and am wondering why the following college sports conference networks are not included in the template: ACC Network, Big Ten Network, MountainWest Sports Network, Pac-12 Network, & SEC Network as well as the Longhorn Network.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
If an actor is credited as a special guest star on the on-screen credits, is in appropriate to list the actor under "Special guest star" subsection of the "Cast and characters" section? Keep in mind that the actor is not credited with the regular guest starring/recurring cast. An editor claimed it is not appropriate and should just be labeled as "Guest star" or "Guest role" as a subsection of the "Cast and characters" section. — YoungForever (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
add anyone who isn't recurring to the "Guest starring" list.— YoungForever (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
A user at Talk:26th Critics' Choice Awards recently proposed a merger for the 11th Critics' Choice Television Awards into the 26th Critics' Choice Awards, pointing out that the two events are really the same ceremony. It seems that in the past, the ceremonies were separate, but this is no longer the case. I would appreciate it if more people could take a look at the issue on the talk page, since a merger would set a standard not just for this year's ceremony, but for past ceremonies as well, and given that the events started separate and merged later, it is unclear how they should be kept now. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Firefly Lane § Special guest star vs. guest star. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. —
YoungForever
(talk)
14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Just a note that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment is maxed out by template limits, and is listed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Need help in archiving sections of the page, thanks! Funandtrvl ( talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion is made at Talk:List of American Idol finalists#Insufficient amount of sources? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:Star Wars spinoffs has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -
adamstom97 (
talk)
07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone! Back in December, I thought it was a good idea to split off a section from the Adult animation page. Then, that page seemed too wordy so I split off content related to the U.S. in a page titled Adult animation in the United States. From there, I decided to split the page yet again to the Adult animated television series in the United States. Perhaps that was too hasty, but that's a whole other discussion. Recently I was looking at the latter page and shaking my head. I'd still like to keep the page, if possible, but it's also overly wordy. That is, admittedly, my fault, and I've made it worse. Anyway, I'd like help with cutting the content down, spinning off parts of the page to appropriate pages, and so on. I would even venture that the whole page itself needs to be redone, but I'm just not sure how to proceed. So, that's why I'm posting about it here. Any suggestions and help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a
Red
link in the template "{{
Former TLC Programming}}".
I mentioned it (including some "ideas" for ... what to do about it) here:
Any advice? or other comments? -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 07:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It appears this series is in development hell, having been scheduled to begin shooting some time ago but run into trouble, but someone inappropriately placed an article on it in the mainspace. I personally think that long-planned and/or cancelled shows and movies, if the sources are there, are more meriting of standalone articles than released shows and movies that there's nothing encyclopedic to write about, but this doesn't appear to be either, and even if it were the former I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. I considered redirecting it, but can't think of a good target: what do folks here think should be done about it? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
TV6 (Malaysia) is a TV channel launching next week. The articl about it has been the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI#TV6 (Malaysia). Main problem is that notability is not established as the article is unreferenced. Any members of this WP willing to try to save it from deletion? Mjroots ( talk) 17:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)