![]() | 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 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 39 |
A year back its channel positions were added, but now that they're gone, keep a lookout on network articles, because their positions now need removal. Nate • ( chatter) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I assume that if a television show is notable, then you can have spinout articles for each season. Someone has nominated some articles for deletion and argued they need to establish notability on their own. How are television shows normally done? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nostalgia Critic (season 13) Dream Focus 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Would simplying a series overview's layout to look like the table at The Twilight Zone (2019 TV series)#Episodes be a poor decision or an acceptable one? -- / Alex/ 21 04:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Then don't use a table.. MOS:TABLE says
Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. ... In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated.The tables in two of the articles cited are so basic that they can be converted to a few sentences of prose (or a single sentence if the redundantly duplicative dates are removed). Tables have another negative; they're usually harder for mobile users - i.e. the majority of the audience - to read than prose (and on Wikipedia, often comically so). Also, Alex 21 may wish to fix their The Twilight Zone link, as the acceptable (or poor) format change has been reverted. 49.195.185.179 ( talk) 18:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Not directly related, but my only comment would be that it seems to be redundant to have both an "originally aired" cell and then "first aired" and "last aired" cells below that. Seems it would work/look better without the "originally aired" cell. Unless there's a reason it's that way that I'm not seeing. Amaury • 09:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a very, very heated discussion going on at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) which is attempting to set a new precedent for all contestant progress tables that would affect a lot of articles such as The Apprentice. I believe that trying to set a new precedent on one series page of one specific show is incorrect, and the discussion should be taken to this page or WP:RPDR instead. The arguments for changing them appear to be access, whereas the argument against changing them is precedent and failing to convey enough information. Spa-Franks ( talk) 11:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
"Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it."A simple episode summary of a reality show that ends with, "...Ann E. Person was eliminated." is obviously fine on this score. "Contestant progress" tables almost never are, and the ones at the Ru Paul article are pretty good at showing why – those don't just track who was "eliminated" by week – they add a bunch more fancruft-y info that pretty clearly crosses this line. And the reality TV articles only get worse from there – I've seen season articles at some of these that include tables that track every single game or contest type over the entire course of the season, and track those results as well. This isn't a wikia – It's an encyclopedia. Really, we are only supposed to be offering a general overview of TV shows, not a bunch of minutia detail that one could only appreciate if they watched every single second of a show. No one is saying that a reality TV series would never qualify for individual "season" articles, etc. But these "contestant progress" tables pretty clearly cross every line we're supposed to have. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
"Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens...When you're getting into things like "arrival order" (for all of the contestants), you are getting way too close to a "scene-by-scene sequence of everything". I agree with Bilorv that this kind of thing is a Wikia's job. On our end, anything much beyond a very simple "elimination chart", or something similar, is beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia article should do. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Please note I have now taken the discussion at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) to Dispute resolution. Spa-Franks ( talk) 00:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I created the FLRC page on the List of American Idol finalists page. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone with subject knowledge about the medical drama House might want to take a look at Talk:Pilot (House)#FA Sweeps, where I've left some comments about how the page—promoted to FA in 2008—doesn't meet the current standard in my opinion, and how this could be fixed. — Bilorv ( talk) 14:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
So having seen the absolute vast majority of television series infoboxes not having the tenures of their cast included there, I was surprised to see that M*A*S*H did. So to have it be consistent with the other pages, I took them out. It's not like this info isn't already present. @ Beyond My Ken: came in and reverted this, citing "let;s provide our readers with information when we have it". This is confusing to me as it indicates the edit deprives editors of that information. Like I said, this info is still on the page, just at the cast section, which I feel is the most appropriate place for it. So I restore my edit, explaining that the info is still there and stating I don't feel infoboxes need tenures. Ken snottily reverted again, demanding a policy and accused me of edit warring, which is pretty silly given it was one revert. I asked Ken on their talk why this particular show should be different from other shows's boxes and seeing as they refuse to explain, I have brought the issue here to garner an idea of where others stand. Rusted AutoParts 16:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Character names, years, or seasons should not be included.This is pretty clear. — YoungForever (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
User:CartoonnewsCP is going through Television articles changing the formatting in Infoboxes, with edit summaries like the following:
and making changing to the creators field, removing list templates {{ Plainlist}} or {{ Unbulleted list}} and replacing them with formatting, such as:
You can see from the diffs that some the changes include a large warning comment telling other editors not to use the Plainlist template. If the guidelines were clear such a large warning comment should not be necessary. This all seemed like a new development to me, and not at all in keeping with how I thought Television Infoboxes have been doing this for years.
[5]
[6] Outside of the animation articles recently changed by CartoonnewsCP I haven't noticed other television infoboxes doing this yet.
When asked
User:CartoonnewsCP said he was following the example of
User:YoungForever. YF says there was already consensus to format exactly as in the on screen credits, but has not pointed to guidelines or a discussion that makes it clear, which is why I felt I had no choice but to start this discussion.
The MOS:TV guidelines do say "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits" and "All names should be referred to as credited". I understood this to mean that we should use the name as it is credited even if the actor has more than one stage name or pseudonym. It is not clear that this was meant to extend beyond the cast list and apply even to the punctuation and formatting of crew in the Infobox, specifically the need to format the creators using "and" or "&" or "+" exactly as credited onscreen. Template:Infobox television also gives no indication that the formatting should be exactly as the WGA specifies. This seems to ignore other guidelines such as MOS:AMP and MOS:PLIST.
User:YoungForever said there was already a consensus for these for the kinds of changes User:CartoonnewsCP has been making. Could someone else please confirm that the Infobox formatting should be following "and" or "&" or "+" exactly as credited onscreen, or "how the WGA wants it"? If Project Television has decided (or decides) this is the way things should be formatted could someone please update the guidelines to be more specific and also update the documentation of Template:Infobox television to clearly state that even punctuation such as & should be followed exactly in the Infobox. -- 109.79.170.28 ( talk) 05:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g. tables and infoboxes.)Yet, you keep ignoring that part. For example, Waco O'Guin & Roger Black is a writing team not two separate writer and "&" is part of the writing team name. — YoungForever (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
For writing guild rules "&" means a formally acknowledged writing team who get credited as a team for everything they do, and "and" just means separate writers who collaborate for this one project but do not generally work together.Amaury • 21:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. So you can use a common name that's different to the credits, if there's consensus for it. The same is stated in the MoS for films:
All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Nowhere do I see it stated that the format of the credits should be used, meaning those & and ands, but going off common practice (which is implicit consensus) they shouldn't be used in infoboxes. — El Millo ( talk) 04:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's a link discussing a film's billing block, which discusses "and" and "&". Regarding an infobox, per {{
Infobox television}} documentation, For most of the fields below, if there are multiple entries, separate them using {{
Plainlist}} or {{
Unbulleted list}}
. We shouldn't be using "and", "&" or other stylings in the infobox (such as cast members being listed as "with X, with Y, and Z", because that should be a quick overview for readers. This is stated somewhere, but I don't know off hand where. Outside of that, prose and episode tables should follow official credits. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 15:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't be using "and", "&" or other stylings in the infobox (such as cast members being listed as "with X, with Y, and Z", because that should be a quick overview for readers.is certainly not on MOS:TV nor Template:Infobox television nor MOS:AMP. — YoungForever (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
creator
parameter of {{
Infobox television}}. Either a more formal discussion here, or there, should be enough. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 19:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
So what happens next? What do the editors who want this strict formatting propose? How should the documentation make it clear that WGA formatting such as "and" or "&" should be matched exactly? Perhaps a line about formatting creators in MOS:TVPRODUCTION? What are they going to do to make sure that there aren't a whole lot of GA and FA articles setting a bad example by ignoring the strict formatting? It is unfair to expect people to follow so many unwritten rules, or to expect people to take it on trust when someone says a consensus already exists. I'd like it to see this be made clearer somewhere else besides this discussion. -- 109.79.80.28 ( talk) 15:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi — this has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't immediately find the right thread so asking again. If a non-English-language TV series has also an 'official' English name for use in international markets, should the series be described on Wikipedia under the original or English article title? (I found WP:UE, which seems to suggest the latter, but I'm not sure if it applies here.) I came across this question in connection with a Turkish TV series which is currently listed under its original name (Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu); if anyone wants to contribute to the discussion directly on the talk page, please do. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I have created an article on Personne n'y avait pensé !, the French adaptation of the UK quiz Pointless. The French Wikipedia article on Personne... links to the English Wikipedia article on Pointless. Should it be redirected so that the FR page on the FR show links to the EN page on the FR show, and how is this done? Unknown Temptation ( talk) 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Star original programming § problems.
Joeyconnick (
talk) 01:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a dispute at As Told by Ginger. I am not at all familiar with the conventions in this area and I don't have time to mediate anyway, but if someone could head over there and take a look that would be appreciated. 83.136.106.241 ( talk) 03:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought I'd post about it on here first before I possibly propose a deletion of the page. I am posting here because the web television page has now been merged into Streaming television page per a consensus reached on Talk:Web television#Merger_proposal. I was thinking the page could be split apart, but even that may be hard to do. So maybe it should just be junked altogether. Thoughts? -- Historyday01 ( talk) 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I am curious, why are we using an importance scale for this project. Is it really needed? Govvy ( talk) 09:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discussion about the use of BBC Kids (formerly a Canada-only TV channel; now an Australia-only TV channel), see talk:BBC Kids -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 11:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Requesting some clarity on what "original network" or programming in the television infobox. I tried raising this issue in the template's talk page, but I was not able to get any feedback.
The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available.
— Original network field usage guidelines (Template:Infobox television)
From what I understand, the intention of this field is to exclude any secondary broadcasters including simulcast and encore broadcasts shortly after the original broadcast (either the same date or a few days after). However the infobox guidelines only explicitly excludes foreign broadcasters and does not take into account domestic broadcasters which may have acquired broadcasting rights from the original production company/network which produced the series.
This is especially a problem for ABS-CBN Corporation's series since the company was forced to stop the operations of its original main network ABS-CBN due to its franchise non-renewal in 2020. Consequentially the airing of ABS-CBN's series was affected. The company has since set up a pay channel known as the Kapamilya Channel where it continued broadcast for its series, some of which had new episodes/content (meaning these episodes didn't broadcast in the old ABS-CBN network; making Kapamilya Channel and "original network" as well).
However ABS-CBN in an effort to maximize its reach aired its series on its affiliate channels such as Jeepney TV. It also had its series be broadcast in A2Z and TV5 after a partnership deal. ABS-CBN's series either air on all of these channels on the same time or at the same date, which from what I understand is a simulcast. ABS-CBN Corporation is still the producer for the series' content, they just gave A2Z and TV5 rights to air their series. See Ang Probinsyano and the ASAP (Philippine TV program) for example.
Ang Probinsyano "original network"
In this example, it was clear that ABS-CBN is the original network until March 2020. New episodes of the series began to air in the Kapamilya Channel, ABS-CBN network's replacement with simulcast in Cine Mo! and Jeepney TV. Then Kapamilya Online Live, an online streaming platform equivalent of Kapamilya Channel, began to air the series while new episodes are still being aired in the previous three networks. Then ABS-CBN allowed A2Z and TV5, both rival networks to air Ang Probinsyano.
What I think is ABS-CBN and Kapamilya Channel should be the only "original networks" since Cine Mo! and Jeepney TV are secondary networks of ABS-CBN Corporation, and Kapamilya Channel is touted by the company to be ABS-CBN network's successor. "Kapamilya Online Live" is basically the online streaming counterpart of Kapamilya Channel. A2Z and TV5 just do simulcast of new episodes but ultimately has no role in the production.
Another big concern is how to relay any consensus that comes out of this. Especially to IPs and new users or to any other users who have a different understanding on what "original network" is. From my experience some users insists all networks that aired the series during its original run are "original networks". Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
secondary broadcasters including simulcast and encore broadcasts shortly after the original broadcast.— YoungForever (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The "Episodes" section of this series was previously laid out in 20-ep batch tables (no idea why) before I recently (Jan) started converting it to what it is now (tables per season) using the NCIS page as guidance. The conversion isn't complete yet but some confusion about episode numbering is making me wonder if I just messed up the page rather than improved it. With what I've done (which was okay for S1 as E6's easily identifiable split makes it understandable), E11 of the show is listed as S2 E1 in the table and #12 overall, but with no indication of its official #11 designation anywhere. The show numbers all eps continuously and 2ndary sources refer to them per the show's titling. The 130th episode recently aired, but if the S3 table is updated it will appear as 131 'Overall', 73 'in Season', and the infobox count would say 131 instead of 130, which could potentially confuse readers. How do I handle this? Is there another column to indicate the actual episode # in the table, or another alternative? I have limited experience w articles of this nature so advice would be most appreciated! -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've made a couple of edits and this, barring any accidental mistakes, is a good system I think. Any confusion in our conversation is as much my responsibility as yours—I'm writing for an audience, after all, and this is very complicated to discuss without visually seeing it (next time I think I should probably demonstrate instead of describe). Feel free to ask if you're still confused. Don't worry about taking up my time—I'd simply leave the conversation if I felt it wasn't worth me spending time on this—and there's no rush so you can always leave it for a while and come back when more relaxed, if you feel anxiety at first. :) — Bilorv ( talk) 01:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This was moved back to mainspace from draftspace without any discussion – should it have been?
If the answer is "no", I think any WP:TV regular should feel free to move it back. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
And, again, someone has prematurely created the article, and ignored the Draft. I will let somebody else handle this, but if goes to WP:AfD please let me know so I can vote "delete". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, but apparently the same has happened to the 2021–22 daytime and late night schedules, all by the same editor. Could you check it? I think they should be removed too. — MrE ( talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for these problems i was the one so i told them to move them to the draft space and i don't know how to do that so can you guys make that happen? Hoopstercat ( talk) 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
How do we deal conflict of interest of the production team on television series articles? Brandon Sawyer claimed to be the creator of The Boss Baby: Back in Business and that the TV series is canceled, but did not use {{ edit request}} nor provide a reliable source. — YoungForever (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought it would be a good idea to bring this up here since it's being questioned whether it's anime, and we can reach a consensus. There's currently a discussion in Yasuke (anime) about how the article should be named. You can reach the discussion here Your input would be appreciated. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 16:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A proposed split of content from adult animated streaming TV shows to a page tentatively titled List of adult animated streaming television series is located at Talk:List of adult animated television series#Proposed split of content from adult animated streaming TV shows and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 16:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Source check for Tom Miranda. Thanks! — MarkH21 talk 18:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Making Waves (TV series) 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. GamerPro64 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Doctor Who missing episodes 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. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox television § 'Company' parameter question. I would like some clarification here as to if/when we include "vanity card" production companies in the
company
parameter of {{
Infobox television}}, and the criteria for doing so. Thanks. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
On Loki (TV series), the brief description of the titular character in the casting section refers to him as a "time variant" of the original character, a strictly in-universe implied angle on the program. However, on articles for other shows such as WandaVision, characters with similar in-universe circumstances aren't noted like that, such as the character of Vision, who's description doesn't start off with noting that he's "an alternate reality-created version of the Avenger Vision" etc, nor are similar descriptions seen for other such characters like Gamora in Avengers: Endgame, who is also a "time variant" of the original character in that production.
Beyond the specific link for ' time variant' not being consistent at all with the way it is being intended for use in the description, my general position is that if we start making these explicit in-universe descriptions for certain characters, we'll have to start doing them to all characters for whom they may apply, and due to the nature of some shows (ie comic book ones) that could lead to some very drawn-out and confusing descriptions being placed all over. Davefelmer ( talk) 21:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Bettany portrays a new version of the character created by Wanda within her reality from the part of the Mind Stone that lives in her ..., after stating that he had died in Infinity War at the end of the first sentence. Gamora is a minor character in Endgame, so I guess that's why her being an alternate version is not mentioned in the article, but that could well be added. However, she can't be called a time variant, because reliable sources haven't done that and because we still don't know precisely what being a time variant encompasses, since the show hasn't even premiered yet. — El Millo ( talk) 21:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Similar to the Drag Race tables above, there's currently a dispute over at The Wall (British game show) regarding the addition of contestant records on the article e.g Rhys & Stephanie from Staffordshire, had £4,713 from Free Fall, got four questions correct which added £10,000, meaning their offer was £14,713, but their final bank total was £65,102 and they accepted the contract and so won the smaller amount - admittedly it's easier to understand in table form, but regardless of that it's still just an unverified collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
An IP user has constantly been re-adding this info since it was first added and removed in November last year. Even more confusingly, A user who only has two edits to their name (neither of which are on the article in question) left me a message on my talk page asking me to "stop deleting my hard work I put in on the wall". Two questions. Am I right to keep removing it? And - thinking along the lines of WP:VGSCOPE - is it time that WP:TELEVISION had a list of bulletpoint explanations on inappropriate content that can easily be pointed to? - X201 ( talk) 15:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about this has been started on the article talk page. Opinions and comments welcome. - X201 ( talk) 20:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently in the process of properly formatting Steph Song's filmography by splitting films and TV into separate tables. The series First Touch lists her as having played Dr. Anne Lee while IMDb lists her as having played a character Michelle who appeared in only two episodes. Doing a search yields nothing. There is nothing for references on the article. I will only add the character to the table when the correct one is confirmed. Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KYTV (TV)#Requested move 18 April 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I have been working on the Veronica Clare article for a possible FAC, and I would love to add an image of the show's star Laura Robinson. However, I am quite terrible with anything image-related, and I would greatly appreciate any help or advice on locating an image. Thank you in advance and I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Came upon this article today... and, what even?? All the tables are using round borders and has badly formatted tables... I'm not sure how to go about cleaning this up at all. It apparently seems to be the doing of this IP back in November that was even blocked from editing for 1 month shortly after all their mass changes on the article (though the block may have actually been regarding something else).
Even if I were to just remove the {{round corners}}";
text for the tables, the tables formatting/layouts are still not the best whatsoever. I'm not quite sure how this should be tackled... is there possibly any 'easy' way to get this fixed/cleaned up?... (hoping so..)
Magitroopa (
talk) 13:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
TV.com has been long inactive and hasn't had any value as a website for several, several years now; with IMDB being vastly superior in terms of that type of website. I've noticed basically all the links are either dead, not loading, or the pages are just blank with no content. I don't think many Wiki editors are still actively adding TV.com as an external link, but I'm wondering if we should start scrubbing these links from the external link sections of the articles because they no longer hold any value. I'm wondering if a bot could be made, so it wouldn't have to be done manually. Also, would probably be a good idea to remove TV.com from MOS:TV.
To use The Walking Dead as an example:
Thoughts? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's a dozen more various links:
I came across some working links: the main pages for Bones and Community, but they take awhile to load, and clicking tabs such as "Episode Guide" lead to dead pages. The page for Succession (a more recent series) exists, but it's completely empty and void of content. All in all, TV.com is an inactive website (for awhile now), that is buggy, slow, and filled with dead link or pages with no content. Also, their main shows tab is empty and display nothing. Time for it to go in my opinion. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The result at WP:TfD was delete (very strongly, with way more participants than usual!). The TV.com templates are currently in the process of being removed and deleted. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I am surprised that this List of episodes is a feature list article. Since MOS:TV and WP:TV have long-standing general consensus that one season, especially just 13 episodes do not warrant a List of episodes article. Should this List of episodes article be merge back to the main article? — YoungForever (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:TV.com name has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Frietjes (
talk) 19:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Since when did Series Overview labeled as a subsection under the Episodes section on main articles for those without List of episodes is frown upon? This is stemming from this when an editor decided to remove Series overview subsection label out of nowhere claiming it is wrong/frown upon because MOS:TVOVERVIEW states that. I see nothing on MOS:TVOVERVIEW that explicitly said that. I also want to point out that fact that there are both with and without Series Overview labeled as a subsection on main articles for those without List of episodes articles are good television series articles. — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
that a series overview summarizes the entire episodes section. And so what? Nothing on MOS:TV and WP:TV explicitly say that a subheading for the series overview is wrong. I am not discussing it in two places. I posted on here because there is a more centralized discussion. Your talk is just your talk and I did not started the discussion there. — YoungForever (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I started the merger proposal of Candice Brown at " Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Redirect Candice Brown?" -- George Ho ( talk) 03:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I recently had a disagreement with another editor re: the need to cite a source in the infobox episode count parameter. Before looking at dispute resolution or third party opinion, I thought I would seek out information from someone who also participates in Wikiproject Television. The article is How the West Was Won (TV series). The other user tagged the episode count as CN. I noted that episode counts for the infobox come from the episode table. Noting this article's episode list table was not transcluded, I did that first and noted this information, thus removing the CN tag. A discussion ensued on the talk page, which resulted in a stalemate. There is no specific information in the Project that indicates the answer to this with specificity. It's extrapolated from the fact that (1) the episode count is derived from the episode table, and (2) the infobox template states only that a citation is specifically required when the production count and aired count do not match (which makes sense). I understand that Wikipedia does not cite itself. However, it's standard practice for infobox episode counts in TV articles to be derived from the episode table. Does an experienced TV Project editor have any insight on this? Butlerblog ( talk) 18:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dismukes. Anybody interested are welcomed to participate. Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 17:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I've been having difficulty with assessing the edits that make up the International adaptations, Arabic version, and Other versions sections. In addition to these having no sources, it looks like vandalism to me with a lot of gibberish, either in English or whatever other languages are being placed there. Originally, this was just one section called Other versions, that was put in there starting in February. Given how that progressed, and seeing gibberish, I eventually decided to remove the section (which was also unsourced) [7], only to see the content return. Any thoughts on how to handle this one? MPFitz1968 ( talk) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of American television programs § The table for the list seems to be broken. There's an immediate issue here, and then a more general concern I've had for a while. The "immediate issue" is that the table at this article may not be rendering with sortability properly on mobile devices – in general, I think the 'colspan' section headers within the table are highly problematic and may be contributing to the sortability issue. So if someone who is technically proficient (esp. with tables) has any ideas here, they would be welcome...
The more general concern I've had for a while is that I strongly think
List of American television programs by debut date should be merged into
List of American television programs, now that the latter has switched to a sortable table format (and the former has always been an unmitigated disaster of a "list" article!) – it would be relatively straight forward to convert the 'Aired Years' column at the latter into two 'Debut date' and 'End date' (or 'Last aired date') columns...
Anyway, if anybody cares to comment about either issue, please feel free. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
In a table like
Arrowverse#Television series, where we have links to the parent article and season articles, would it be beneficial to add a link to an episode list article for each series, where such a list already exists? Perhaps using something like |series=''[[Arrow (TV series)|Arrow]]'' <br /> ([[List of Arrow episodes|episodes]])
? Would there be a better way? -- /
Alex/
21 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The same argument could be applied to the season article links, not sure if you meant what I think, but I always found it very strange that clicking on the number link in the "Season" cell of the series overview table (in a section such as Arrow (TV series)#Episodes) leads not to the season page, but to the List of episode page, where we don't even show the episode summaries. That's a pretty WP:ASTONISH and WP:EGG link. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
includeonly List of Arrow episodes/includeonly#Season 1 (2012–13)
the link should be Arrow (season 1)
and everything works as is expected. In the LoE article, nothing is lost either, as the Series overview is right under the ToC anyways so section links are still there. --
Gonnym (
talk) 13:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Awake (TV series) § Merging proposal from List of Awake episodes into Awake (TV series). —
YoungForever
(talk) 13:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The Nanny is one of those articles that has both a 'Characters' section and a 'Cast' section, so I'm looking for ideas/suggestions on how best to merge these sections into one... In fact, I'm looking for advice on how to clean up the article generally, as it's definitely not in the best MOS:TV shape it could be... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
List of Red vs. Blue episodes is (rightly) tagged for excessive size, but I originally merged everything into the main List of article because there's nothing out there in terms of sources. I mean nothing. There's absolutely no good reliable sources that can be used for recaps, or any good secondary sources for anything. In situations like this (a webseries) I guess the question is does it make sense to just either cut the entire thing down to just the list, or does it even make sense to have anything more detailed than a season listing (which could go in the main article?) Not like you could ever feature a list with so few opportunities for real sourcing. Would love some opinions from people not really familiar with it/familiar with dealing with web series. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Some editors are, without reason, reverting my removal of unsourced, fansitey content. I'd like additional opinions on the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) 816,288 27,209 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Mighty Ducks: Game Changers § Co-starring. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. —
YoungForever
(talk) 13:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please tell me that WP:TV has some sort of guideline or suggestions at least for how we should handle {{ Short description}}s at TV series articles? Mostly what I've seen from this are examples like "American television series" or "American television sitcom", which seems appropriate for this. Something like this is very non-standard, and even goes against policies at WP:NCTV. Further I've seen people attempt to do some really not "short descriptions" at some articles – stuff like, for example, "1984–1989 television comedy that aired on NBC" type of thing.
So is there any guidance on how we should {{ Short description}}s going forward? It would be good it WP:TV has some sort of consistent formatting with these. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
American legal drama television seriesis the {{ Short description}} or sometimes the year when it premiered is added in the front like this
2020 American legal drama television series. — YoungForever (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
no more than about 40 characters. I don't mind "[year] television series", and WP:SDDATES seems to like it too, but it seems no-one understands the purpose is to help a mobile user (and, in the planned design revamp, desktop users) identify which of multiple pages they are looking for in the search bar. Just "television series" can do this in any case where there is no TV series of the same name (in which case, the title probably includes the years as diambiguators, which is then enough information). — Bilorv ( talk) 10:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
no more than about 40 charactersas it is for {{ Short description}}. — YoungForever (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
If anyone is looking for stuff to do, a lot (most? all?) of the Ugly Betty episodes such as In the Stars sections don't follow WP:LAYOUT or MOS:TV. Gonnym ( talk) 11:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Should web series that don't get broadcast on any subscription or free-to-air channel be assigned this project? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I have prepared a draft article about YouTube Pride 2021 celebrations User:Peony1432/sandbox. While on first look this appears to be a WP: Crystal Ball event, there are exceptions for well-publicized events that are newsworthy. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project about how to improve this draft. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for Google. Thanks Peony1432 ( talk) 21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
for the longest ever article title goes too American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in an Episode Episode of a One-Hour Television Series – Commercial !! Govvy ( talk) 10:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a notification to 6 relevant wikiprojects. Most of the talk page Talk:High dynamic range, though it seems like a long-running discussion, is only the last day or two since I discovered the renaming and other things going on there, much of which I reverted pending discussion. Please see and comment if this area interests you. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite. I know there's a move on to establish a separate WP:NTV and that section isn't being considered, but this is important enough for you know of (especially as some 20 people have contributed to those discussions in the last 6 months), and we'd appreciate feedback as we start the road of rewriting this for the purpose of seeking elevation to guideline status.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've cleared out at ton of series at {{ Netflix original upcoming series}} (comparison to previous version), per WP:NTV, draftifying series that have not yet commenced filming. -- / Alex/ 21 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
New discussion at Template Talk:RuPual's Drag Race. Contributions are all welcome. Thanks -- 78.148.25.46 ( talk) 06:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
(Not to mention numerous unrated articles)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Tasks. This page is currently unused, but the project might find it useful (if it's used), in which case project participants may want to consider the case for deletion. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 15:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Would winning an Emmy Award meet (c) of item 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I'm not talking about a Regional Emmy Award, but one of the national ones. The reason I'm asking about this has to do with Draft:Todd Masters. There are lots of issues (possible COI, formatting, NPOV, etc.) associated with that draft, but Masters (if the draft is correct) has won multiple Emmys. There are some other things written in the draft that might indicate that he also meets items 1 and 3 of CREATIVE, but the main thing that stands out is the Emmy Awards. If Masters is unable to meet CREATIVE, it seems unlikely that he's going to meet GNG for his activities in other areas like his environmental work; so, I guess everything is riding on CREATIVE. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Star (Disney+) has a lot of exclusive international distribution of American TV series. Is appropriate to call the list of American TV series Star original programming on {{ Star original programming}}? The primary networks are American TV networks, not Star as Star is a just a secondary network. — YoungForever (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
If you don't have Wikipedia:Notability (television) on your watchlist, and have been unaware, some recent additions have been made by Kingsif to get this notability guideline very close to a site-wide RfC to (finally) implement. Some more discussion is occurring on that talk page regarding some small additions and rearranging in this discussion, so please join to add any more, pre-RfC thoughts. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
With the hiatus of Showbuzz Daily, I have seen some articles cite SpoilerTV. I don't know how they have finals but apparently they do. I believe this is an unreliable source though, and it is odd to cite an article with "DarkUFO" as the author...
The only reliable sources that give final ratings are the Associated Press, which does a weekly top 20 viewers, and the Los Angeles Times, which is more a highlights of viewers than details for everything. None give 18–49 ratings. Should we resort to using preliminaries from Deadline, TVLine, etc. for shows that do not have their final numbers reported, and add a note or something? At this point I think something is better than nothing. With ratings so low nowadays it's not like there's that much difference between preliminaries and finals for most shows anyways. But for any cable show ratings, RIP. Heartfox ( talk) 22:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There's really no reason why TVSeriesfinale can't be used for final ratings sourcing for shows until a better source becomes available. It's used as sourcing for ratings graphs on list of episodes pages for a great many shows. I don't know their update schedule but I think they have the finals within a few days to a week of each show airing. 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
if/when better one becomes available, the better source should replaced TV Series Finale source. — YoungForever (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm also having issues with another editor on the Superman & Lois page when adding this source. For the record I only reverted him twice on the page. I don't know why I was tagged as "reverting" when initially adding the TVSeriesfinale ratings as a source to that page as I didn't revert anyone. But editting as an IP has its downsides I guess. 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 21:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yowza. Looks like Showbuzz Daily is officially over now. Magitroopa ( talk) 19:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought these thoughts from Bill Gorman(TV Grim Reaper) were interesting. [9] & [10] He seems to believe that these days no one actually pays for Nielsen ratings, he thinks they come from unauthorized sources. Do we actually have any evidence that SpoilerTV pay for access? The way ShowbuzzDaily abruptly poofed away would back up Bill Gormans thoughts. I mean, he did run the largest television ratings website in the world and would know all about the technical side of things. 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 19:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep using SpoilerTV for now. What exactly made Showbuzz more of an RS than SpoilerTV? Is it considered unreliable because it's "fan-created"? If so, that's ridiculous. We should stick a "better source needed" next to ratings from SpoilerTV for now until we find a better source or find that SpoilerTV is just as reliable. wizzito | say hello! 21:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I've found another source that uses Nielsen Data called Ratings Ryan. My only problem with this site is that it's a blog site. Just putting this out since theirs no consensus about sourcing SpoilerTV. kpgamingz ( rant me) 00:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Source: Nielsen Media Research via SpoilerTV. — YoungForever (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Gonnym User:Alucard 16 please see the discussion for merging a page here [11] and please see the sources there is no spin off it’s continued in same season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.117 ( talk) 11:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at the cast, the list there seems overkill, I wasn't sure if it needed stripping down, how to handle it. Cheers, thanks. Govvy ( talk) 08:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Q-Force (TV series)#Requested move 25 June 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lennart97 ( talk) 15:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I have done a discussion about the Johnny Test article getting split, as the "seventh season" may actually a different, separate series, according to what Netflix says. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 18:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I can see the alert list, but where is the simple del sort page? I have an AfD I wanted to add to the del sort. Govvy ( talk) 07:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Degrassi: The Next Generation 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. ToQ100gou ( talk) 02:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
For years we used Showbuzz Daily to find out how many views the premiere of a TV episode generated. Now that the website no longer publishes views, are there any other websites we can use to find the views of certain TV shows? 172.250.44.165 ( talk) 05:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional viewpoints would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doomsday_Prophecy. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
So, per MOS:LISTINTRO, I added an introductory sentence to the cast lists for Critical Role's first and second campaigns. I then thought to compare against the examples within MOS:TVCAST – only to find that there are no such introductions. I've self reverted my edits; but just want to ask if the lack of any opening sentence is an oversight, a case of WP:IAR, or project consensus? I had a very quick look through the archives here and at MOS:TV; but I couldn't find any relevant discussion with the search terms I used. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob ( talk) 12:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Engagement. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I want to question a source of this edit on Chicago P.D.. I don't think the source on it is reliable. BattleshipMan ( talk) 01:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) § Catherine Zeta-Jones. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. —
YoungForever
(talk) 13:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I attempting to address the issues brought up at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nigel Kneale/archive1 in order to get the article back into a shape warranting keeping FA status. However, I'm just not that familiar with the subject, and I'm starting to get to the point where I'm at about as much as I'll be able to do. Any help addressing the issues here would be much appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
What's with the weird duplication? I can't see the where the second infobox code is! Govvy ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
What exactly is the 'proper' usage of
Template:End date? I would think (and have thought) that this template should only be used when there is an actual date to list (hence the syntax- {{End date|year|month|day}}
). However, per
Template:Infobox television season, the last_aired
parameter says, "...While the season is airing, {{End date|present}}
should be used."
On the other side, Template:Infobox television seems to disagree with this, saying that 'present' can be changed to the date the last episode aired using the end date template, and that the end date template should be used if the show is ended.
If one of these is the 'correct' usage of the parameter, shouldn't the one template (between Template:Infobox television season & Template:Infobox television) that is incorrect be fixed? Magitroopa ( talk) 05:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
|last_aired=present
or |last_aired={{End date|present}}
doesn't matter. -- /
Alex/
21 10:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
|last_aired={{End date|present}}
makes no sense ("present" is literally not an "end date") – it should simply be |last_aired=present
. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 14:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I split List of Dead Ringers episodes from the main article due to its sheer length; which by itself has over 166 KB of content. It still needs some more MOS cleanup, including reorganization of the specials, selection of unique colors for the summary table in the main article, and possibly removal of fancruft. An RM is open for Dead Ringers as well. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Cleo & Cuquin is an animated children's television series. I think I have cleaned it up after some unconstructive editing in the last few months and would appreciate it if some of you wanted to add it to your watch lists. TSventon ( talk) 18:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I've opened a proposal to merge the articles for individual AFI Award ceremonies into a single article. If you're interested, any comments would be much appreciated at Talk:American Film Institute#Merger proposal for AFI Awards. Thanks! RunningTiger123 ( talk) 00:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 18 § Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5.
Gonnym (
talk) 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Gonnym (
talk) 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Could I please get some feedback at Talk:Invincible (TV series)#Infobox image? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Love Island (American season 3) "Exclusive episodes".
TheDoctorWho
(talk) 18:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
TheDoctorWho
(talk) 18:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Over a year ago a group of inactive TV WikiProjects were converted to task forces and joined a group of other TV-related (mostly inactive) task forces. As the table below shows, almost all task forces related to TV series haven't been active in years, most since before 2013. Keeping them in active state (regardless of an inactive notice some use on their page) means that there is a lot of needles maintenance surrounding them, including hundreds of pointless categories; the need to update dozens of rows in {{ WikiProject Television}} when a new task force is added; many unseen XfD discussion notices; and many other automatic or semi-automatic bot operations that no one cares about.
To the editors who were members of one of these task forces and to the editors who enjoy these TV series - this is in no way personal or means that your program isn't deserving of a task force. It's just an objective fact that no community collaboration is taking place on those pages and issues that do get posted, don't get answered as there just aren't editors watching those pages. Closing those task forces and redirecting to the main TV project would allow better collaboration for those programs.
Also note that there are also inactive non-TV series task forces, but to not make this proposal even harder, I've left them out.
I propose to officially close these inactive task forces (note: the ones in the active table aren't included in the proposal):
Additionally I propose that no new TV series related task forces be created without gaining consensus here first.
Inactive task forces
|
---|
Active task forces
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Note, if don't oppose the general proposal but only oppose a closing of a specific task force, it would be helpful if you state that instead. Gonnym ( talk) 12:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I got this odd question, that I've started having in regards to articles that are created for contestants on talent programmes - with the exception of people who have already begun a career and have an article already, should editors be making articles for contestants who have none on Wikipedia and who's only notability per WP:BIO is connected to that programme? Or should such articles be created by editors, on condition it remain as a draft until they have made further appearances beyond the programme, or have had their backgrounds checked to find out if they had worked before appearing on the programme? GUtt01 ( talk) 21:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion launched by Dutchy45 at Category talk:Establishments#Exclude_TV_series_debuts_from_Establishments_in_countryname, which is entirely about categories within the scope of this project.
Editors interested in joining the discussion should post their comments on the category talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — YoungForever (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It's become fairly common for episodes of TV series to get early release dates via the network's streaming service. I'll use AMC+ as an example, episodes are released three days prior to their broadcast dates, while season premieres are generally released a week early. Kevin Can F**k Himself is an example of this, I noticed the dates in the episode table were for their AMC+ dates and changed them back to their air dates. Is this what should be doing? The episode table is using "Original air date", so we should obviously be using the air dates, but we can easily change the table to read "Original release date" and use the streaming release dates. However, with the use of the viewership column, it would make sense to keep the air dates. Basically, the question is, and I feel we need a consensus on this for consistency across the project: do we keep "air dates" as the primary release date for any television series that is traditionally broadcast and simply note the early release via streaming in prose? Thoughts? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Black Mirror episodes § Ratings graph/table. To summarise: is six episodes enough to use {{
Television ratings graph}}? -- /
Alex/
21 07:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
About two days ago, I try to submit a plot summary to The Chicken Squad which is absolutely my own idea. However, BaldiBasicsFan calls my contribution "copyvio" without proof. Because of this, the user has reverted me twice. Well, what's your take on the case? 104.172.119.172 ( talk) 14:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why users make summaries that are about less than 100 words. Even if the summaries created are in your words, they can be considered COPYVIO due to them looking like they are paraphrased from another website. COPYVIO or not, next time write summaries that are 100 to 200 words in length, per MOS:TVPLOT. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 18:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe they did this at Johnny Test (2021 TV series) as well — not unreasonable as a potential close paraphrasing, but the plot summaries were also poorly written with ambiguous constructs like [Johnny and Dukey] destroy deadly weapons to people who use them. First removal: Special:Diff/1034390733. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Now that AT&T has spun-off DirecTV, and along with it, the streaming service AT&T TV (which is now known as DirecTV Stream, and I'm leaving aside my thoughts on how awful AT&T named their entertainment products), the infoboxes have been changed to reflect that, and now that the services outside of one word have the same name, but have already shared common channel lineups, I'm suggesting that ( DirecTV/ Stream) be used in whichever 'sat_serv_#=' entry in the infobox is used, saving us having to fill the 'iptv_serv_#=' field with a duplicative channel for Stream. Does anyone have any objection to this? Nate • ( chatter) 03:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The Disney Family Singalong, The Disney Family Singalong: Volume II, and The Disney Holiday Singalong are television specials which aired on ABC (United States) during the pandemic. The articles for these three programs have been nominated for merging. Discussion has been limited, so I'm hoping some other editors can weigh in. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:14, 8 August 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 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 39 |
A year back its channel positions were added, but now that they're gone, keep a lookout on network articles, because their positions now need removal. Nate • ( chatter) 03:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I assume that if a television show is notable, then you can have spinout articles for each season. Someone has nominated some articles for deletion and argued they need to establish notability on their own. How are television shows normally done? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nostalgia Critic (season 13) Dream Focus 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Would simplying a series overview's layout to look like the table at The Twilight Zone (2019 TV series)#Episodes be a poor decision or an acceptable one? -- / Alex/ 21 04:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Then don't use a table.. MOS:TABLE says
Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. ... In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely tabulated.The tables in two of the articles cited are so basic that they can be converted to a few sentences of prose (or a single sentence if the redundantly duplicative dates are removed). Tables have another negative; they're usually harder for mobile users - i.e. the majority of the audience - to read than prose (and on Wikipedia, often comically so). Also, Alex 21 may wish to fix their The Twilight Zone link, as the acceptable (or poor) format change has been reverted. 49.195.185.179 ( talk) 18:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Not directly related, but my only comment would be that it seems to be redundant to have both an "originally aired" cell and then "first aired" and "last aired" cells below that. Seems it would work/look better without the "originally aired" cell. Unless there's a reason it's that way that I'm not seeing. Amaury • 09:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a very, very heated discussion going on at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) which is attempting to set a new precedent for all contestant progress tables that would affect a lot of articles such as The Apprentice. I believe that trying to set a new precedent on one series page of one specific show is incorrect, and the discussion should be taken to this page or WP:RPDR instead. The arguments for changing them appear to be access, whereas the argument against changing them is precedent and failing to convey enough information. Spa-Franks ( talk) 11:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
"Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens, or attempt to evaluate, interpret or analyze it."A simple episode summary of a reality show that ends with, "...Ann E. Person was eliminated." is obviously fine on this score. "Contestant progress" tables almost never are, and the ones at the Ru Paul article are pretty good at showing why – those don't just track who was "eliminated" by week – they add a bunch more fancruft-y info that pretty clearly crosses this line. And the reality TV articles only get worse from there – I've seen season articles at some of these that include tables that track every single game or contest type over the entire course of the season, and track those results as well. This isn't a wikia – It's an encyclopedia. Really, we are only supposed to be offering a general overview of TV shows, not a bunch of minutia detail that one could only appreciate if they watched every single second of a show. No one is saying that a reality TV series would never qualify for individual "season" articles, etc. But these "contestant progress" tables pretty clearly cross every line we're supposed to have. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
"Plot sections should summarize the core storyline(s), but not offer a scene-by-scene sequence of everything that happens...When you're getting into things like "arrival order" (for all of the contestants), you are getting way too close to a "scene-by-scene sequence of everything". I agree with Bilorv that this kind of thing is a Wikia's job. On our end, anything much beyond a very simple "elimination chart", or something similar, is beyond the scope of what an encyclopedia article should do. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 20:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Please note I have now taken the discussion at RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) to Dispute resolution. Spa-Franks ( talk) 00:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I created the FLRC page on the List of American Idol finalists page. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone with subject knowledge about the medical drama House might want to take a look at Talk:Pilot (House)#FA Sweeps, where I've left some comments about how the page—promoted to FA in 2008—doesn't meet the current standard in my opinion, and how this could be fixed. — Bilorv ( talk) 14:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
So having seen the absolute vast majority of television series infoboxes not having the tenures of their cast included there, I was surprised to see that M*A*S*H did. So to have it be consistent with the other pages, I took them out. It's not like this info isn't already present. @ Beyond My Ken: came in and reverted this, citing "let;s provide our readers with information when we have it". This is confusing to me as it indicates the edit deprives editors of that information. Like I said, this info is still on the page, just at the cast section, which I feel is the most appropriate place for it. So I restore my edit, explaining that the info is still there and stating I don't feel infoboxes need tenures. Ken snottily reverted again, demanding a policy and accused me of edit warring, which is pretty silly given it was one revert. I asked Ken on their talk why this particular show should be different from other shows's boxes and seeing as they refuse to explain, I have brought the issue here to garner an idea of where others stand. Rusted AutoParts 16:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Character names, years, or seasons should not be included.This is pretty clear. — YoungForever (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
User:CartoonnewsCP is going through Television articles changing the formatting in Infoboxes, with edit summaries like the following:
and making changing to the creators field, removing list templates {{ Plainlist}} or {{ Unbulleted list}} and replacing them with formatting, such as:
You can see from the diffs that some the changes include a large warning comment telling other editors not to use the Plainlist template. If the guidelines were clear such a large warning comment should not be necessary. This all seemed like a new development to me, and not at all in keeping with how I thought Television Infoboxes have been doing this for years.
[5]
[6] Outside of the animation articles recently changed by CartoonnewsCP I haven't noticed other television infoboxes doing this yet.
When asked
User:CartoonnewsCP said he was following the example of
User:YoungForever. YF says there was already consensus to format exactly as in the on screen credits, but has not pointed to guidelines or a discussion that makes it clear, which is why I felt I had no choice but to start this discussion.
The MOS:TV guidelines do say "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits" and "All names should be referred to as credited". I understood this to mean that we should use the name as it is credited even if the actor has more than one stage name or pseudonym. It is not clear that this was meant to extend beyond the cast list and apply even to the punctuation and formatting of crew in the Infobox, specifically the need to format the creators using "and" or "&" or "+" exactly as credited onscreen. Template:Infobox television also gives no indication that the formatting should be exactly as the WGA specifies. This seems to ignore other guidelines such as MOS:AMP and MOS:PLIST.
User:YoungForever said there was already a consensus for these for the kinds of changes User:CartoonnewsCP has been making. Could someone else please confirm that the Infobox formatting should be following "and" or "&" or "+" exactly as credited onscreen, or "how the WGA wants it"? If Project Television has decided (or decides) this is the way things should be formatted could someone please update the guidelines to be more specific and also update the documentation of Template:Infobox television to clearly state that even punctuation such as & should be followed exactly in the Infobox. -- 109.79.170.28 ( talk) 05:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
But retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. Elsewhere, ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion where space is extremely limited (e.g. tables and infoboxes.)Yet, you keep ignoring that part. For example, Waco O'Guin & Roger Black is a writing team not two separate writer and "&" is part of the writing team name. — YoungForever (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
For writing guild rules "&" means a formally acknowledged writing team who get credited as a team for everything they do, and "and" just means separate writers who collaborate for this one project but do not generally work together.Amaury • 21:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. So you can use a common name that's different to the credits, if there's consensus for it. The same is stated in the MoS for films:
All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Nowhere do I see it stated that the format of the credits should be used, meaning those & and ands, but going off common practice (which is implicit consensus) they shouldn't be used in infoboxes. — El Millo ( talk) 04:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Here's a link discussing a film's billing block, which discusses "and" and "&". Regarding an infobox, per {{
Infobox television}} documentation, For most of the fields below, if there are multiple entries, separate them using {{
Plainlist}} or {{
Unbulleted list}}
. We shouldn't be using "and", "&" or other stylings in the infobox (such as cast members being listed as "with X, with Y, and Z", because that should be a quick overview for readers. This is stated somewhere, but I don't know off hand where. Outside of that, prose and episode tables should follow official credits. -
Favre1fan93 (
talk) 15:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't be using "and", "&" or other stylings in the infobox (such as cast members being listed as "with X, with Y, and Z", because that should be a quick overview for readers.is certainly not on MOS:TV nor Template:Infobox television nor MOS:AMP. — YoungForever (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
creator
parameter of {{
Infobox television}}. Either a more formal discussion here, or there, should be enough. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 19:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
So what happens next? What do the editors who want this strict formatting propose? How should the documentation make it clear that WGA formatting such as "and" or "&" should be matched exactly? Perhaps a line about formatting creators in MOS:TVPRODUCTION? What are they going to do to make sure that there aren't a whole lot of GA and FA articles setting a bad example by ignoring the strict formatting? It is unfair to expect people to follow so many unwritten rules, or to expect people to take it on trust when someone says a consensus already exists. I'd like it to see this be made clearer somewhere else besides this discussion. -- 109.79.80.28 ( talk) 15:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi — this has probably been discussed before, but I couldn't immediately find the right thread so asking again. If a non-English-language TV series has also an 'official' English name for use in international markets, should the series be described on Wikipedia under the original or English article title? (I found WP:UE, which seems to suggest the latter, but I'm not sure if it applies here.) I came across this question in connection with a Turkish TV series which is currently listed under its original name (Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu); if anyone wants to contribute to the discussion directly on the talk page, please do. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 16:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
I have created an article on Personne n'y avait pensé !, the French adaptation of the UK quiz Pointless. The French Wikipedia article on Personne... links to the English Wikipedia article on Pointless. Should it be redirected so that the FR page on the FR show links to the EN page on the FR show, and how is this done? Unknown Temptation ( talk) 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Star original programming § problems.
Joeyconnick (
talk) 01:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
There's a dispute at As Told by Ginger. I am not at all familiar with the conventions in this area and I don't have time to mediate anyway, but if someone could head over there and take a look that would be appreciated. 83.136.106.241 ( talk) 03:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I thought I'd post about it on here first before I possibly propose a deletion of the page. I am posting here because the web television page has now been merged into Streaming television page per a consensus reached on Talk:Web television#Merger_proposal. I was thinking the page could be split apart, but even that may be hard to do. So maybe it should just be junked altogether. Thoughts? -- Historyday01 ( talk) 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I am curious, why are we using an importance scale for this project. Is it really needed? Govvy ( talk) 09:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
FYI, there is a discussion about the use of BBC Kids (formerly a Canada-only TV channel; now an Australia-only TV channel), see talk:BBC Kids -- 67.70.27.246 ( talk) 11:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Requesting some clarity on what "original network" or programming in the television infobox. I tried raising this issue in the template's talk page, but I was not able to get any feedback.
The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Use links if articles are available.
— Original network field usage guidelines (Template:Infobox television)
From what I understand, the intention of this field is to exclude any secondary broadcasters including simulcast and encore broadcasts shortly after the original broadcast (either the same date or a few days after). However the infobox guidelines only explicitly excludes foreign broadcasters and does not take into account domestic broadcasters which may have acquired broadcasting rights from the original production company/network which produced the series.
This is especially a problem for ABS-CBN Corporation's series since the company was forced to stop the operations of its original main network ABS-CBN due to its franchise non-renewal in 2020. Consequentially the airing of ABS-CBN's series was affected. The company has since set up a pay channel known as the Kapamilya Channel where it continued broadcast for its series, some of which had new episodes/content (meaning these episodes didn't broadcast in the old ABS-CBN network; making Kapamilya Channel and "original network" as well).
However ABS-CBN in an effort to maximize its reach aired its series on its affiliate channels such as Jeepney TV. It also had its series be broadcast in A2Z and TV5 after a partnership deal. ABS-CBN's series either air on all of these channels on the same time or at the same date, which from what I understand is a simulcast. ABS-CBN Corporation is still the producer for the series' content, they just gave A2Z and TV5 rights to air their series. See Ang Probinsyano and the ASAP (Philippine TV program) for example.
Ang Probinsyano "original network"
In this example, it was clear that ABS-CBN is the original network until March 2020. New episodes of the series began to air in the Kapamilya Channel, ABS-CBN network's replacement with simulcast in Cine Mo! and Jeepney TV. Then Kapamilya Online Live, an online streaming platform equivalent of Kapamilya Channel, began to air the series while new episodes are still being aired in the previous three networks. Then ABS-CBN allowed A2Z and TV5, both rival networks to air Ang Probinsyano.
What I think is ABS-CBN and Kapamilya Channel should be the only "original networks" since Cine Mo! and Jeepney TV are secondary networks of ABS-CBN Corporation, and Kapamilya Channel is touted by the company to be ABS-CBN network's successor. "Kapamilya Online Live" is basically the online streaming counterpart of Kapamilya Channel. A2Z and TV5 just do simulcast of new episodes but ultimately has no role in the production.
Another big concern is how to relay any consensus that comes out of this. Especially to IPs and new users or to any other users who have a different understanding on what "original network" is. From my experience some users insists all networks that aired the series during its original run are "original networks". Hariboneagle927 ( talk) 17:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
secondary broadcasters including simulcast and encore broadcasts shortly after the original broadcast.— YoungForever (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The "Episodes" section of this series was previously laid out in 20-ep batch tables (no idea why) before I recently (Jan) started converting it to what it is now (tables per season) using the NCIS page as guidance. The conversion isn't complete yet but some confusion about episode numbering is making me wonder if I just messed up the page rather than improved it. With what I've done (which was okay for S1 as E6's easily identifiable split makes it understandable), E11 of the show is listed as S2 E1 in the table and #12 overall, but with no indication of its official #11 designation anywhere. The show numbers all eps continuously and 2ndary sources refer to them per the show's titling. The 130th episode recently aired, but if the S3 table is updated it will appear as 131 'Overall', 73 'in Season', and the infobox count would say 131 instead of 130, which could potentially confuse readers. How do I handle this? Is there another column to indicate the actual episode # in the table, or another alternative? I have limited experience w articles of this nature so advice would be most appreciated! -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've made a couple of edits and this, barring any accidental mistakes, is a good system I think. Any confusion in our conversation is as much my responsibility as yours—I'm writing for an audience, after all, and this is very complicated to discuss without visually seeing it (next time I think I should probably demonstrate instead of describe). Feel free to ask if you're still confused. Don't worry about taking up my time—I'd simply leave the conversation if I felt it wasn't worth me spending time on this—and there's no rush so you can always leave it for a while and come back when more relaxed, if you feel anxiety at first. :) — Bilorv ( talk) 01:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This was moved back to mainspace from draftspace without any discussion – should it have been?
If the answer is "no", I think any WP:TV regular should feel free to move it back. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
And, again, someone has prematurely created the article, and ignored the Draft. I will let somebody else handle this, but if goes to WP:AfD please let me know so I can vote "delete". -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 03:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, but apparently the same has happened to the 2021–22 daytime and late night schedules, all by the same editor. Could you check it? I think they should be removed too. — MrE ( talk) 23:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for these problems i was the one so i told them to move them to the draft space and i don't know how to do that so can you guys make that happen? Hoopstercat ( talk) 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
How do we deal conflict of interest of the production team on television series articles? Brandon Sawyer claimed to be the creator of The Boss Baby: Back in Business and that the TV series is canceled, but did not use {{ edit request}} nor provide a reliable source. — YoungForever (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought it would be a good idea to bring this up here since it's being questioned whether it's anime, and we can reach a consensus. There's currently a discussion in Yasuke (anime) about how the article should be named. You can reach the discussion here Your input would be appreciated. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 16:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
A proposed split of content from adult animated streaming TV shows to a page tentatively titled List of adult animated streaming television series is located at Talk:List of adult animated television series#Proposed split of content from adult animated streaming TV shows and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 16:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Source check for Tom Miranda. Thanks! — MarkH21 talk 18:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Making Waves (TV series) 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. GamerPro64 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Doctor Who missing episodes 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. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Infobox television § 'Company' parameter question. I would like some clarification here as to if/when we include "vanity card" production companies in the
company
parameter of {{
Infobox television}}, and the criteria for doing so. Thanks. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 14:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
On Loki (TV series), the brief description of the titular character in the casting section refers to him as a "time variant" of the original character, a strictly in-universe implied angle on the program. However, on articles for other shows such as WandaVision, characters with similar in-universe circumstances aren't noted like that, such as the character of Vision, who's description doesn't start off with noting that he's "an alternate reality-created version of the Avenger Vision" etc, nor are similar descriptions seen for other such characters like Gamora in Avengers: Endgame, who is also a "time variant" of the original character in that production.
Beyond the specific link for ' time variant' not being consistent at all with the way it is being intended for use in the description, my general position is that if we start making these explicit in-universe descriptions for certain characters, we'll have to start doing them to all characters for whom they may apply, and due to the nature of some shows (ie comic book ones) that could lead to some very drawn-out and confusing descriptions being placed all over. Davefelmer ( talk) 21:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Bettany portrays a new version of the character created by Wanda within her reality from the part of the Mind Stone that lives in her ..., after stating that he had died in Infinity War at the end of the first sentence. Gamora is a minor character in Endgame, so I guess that's why her being an alternate version is not mentioned in the article, but that could well be added. However, she can't be called a time variant, because reliable sources haven't done that and because we still don't know precisely what being a time variant encompasses, since the show hasn't even premiered yet. — El Millo ( talk) 21:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Similar to the Drag Race tables above, there's currently a dispute over at The Wall (British game show) regarding the addition of contestant records on the article e.g Rhys & Stephanie from Staffordshire, had £4,713 from Free Fall, got four questions correct which added £10,000, meaning their offer was £14,713, but their final bank total was £65,102 and they accepted the contract and so won the smaller amount - admittedly it's easier to understand in table form, but regardless of that it's still just an unverified collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
An IP user has constantly been re-adding this info since it was first added and removed in November last year. Even more confusingly, A user who only has two edits to their name (neither of which are on the article in question) left me a message on my talk page asking me to "stop deleting my hard work I put in on the wall". Two questions. Am I right to keep removing it? And - thinking along the lines of WP:VGSCOPE - is it time that WP:TELEVISION had a list of bulletpoint explanations on inappropriate content that can easily be pointed to? - X201 ( talk) 15:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion about this has been started on the article talk page. Opinions and comments welcome. - X201 ( talk) 20:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Currently in the process of properly formatting Steph Song's filmography by splitting films and TV into separate tables. The series First Touch lists her as having played Dr. Anne Lee while IMDb lists her as having played a character Michelle who appeared in only two episodes. Doing a search yields nothing. There is nothing for references on the article. I will only add the character to the table when the correct one is confirmed. Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 05:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KYTV (TV)#Requested move 18 April 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~ Aseleste ( t, e | c, l) 10:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I have been working on the Veronica Clare article for a possible FAC, and I would love to add an image of the show's star Laura Robinson. However, I am quite terrible with anything image-related, and I would greatly appreciate any help or advice on locating an image. Thank you in advance and I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Came upon this article today... and, what even?? All the tables are using round borders and has badly formatted tables... I'm not sure how to go about cleaning this up at all. It apparently seems to be the doing of this IP back in November that was even blocked from editing for 1 month shortly after all their mass changes on the article (though the block may have actually been regarding something else).
Even if I were to just remove the {{round corners}}";
text for the tables, the tables formatting/layouts are still not the best whatsoever. I'm not quite sure how this should be tackled... is there possibly any 'easy' way to get this fixed/cleaned up?... (hoping so..)
Magitroopa (
talk) 13:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
TV.com has been long inactive and hasn't had any value as a website for several, several years now; with IMDB being vastly superior in terms of that type of website. I've noticed basically all the links are either dead, not loading, or the pages are just blank with no content. I don't think many Wiki editors are still actively adding TV.com as an external link, but I'm wondering if we should start scrubbing these links from the external link sections of the articles because they no longer hold any value. I'm wondering if a bot could be made, so it wouldn't have to be done manually. Also, would probably be a good idea to remove TV.com from MOS:TV.
To use The Walking Dead as an example:
Thoughts? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Here's a dozen more various links:
I came across some working links: the main pages for Bones and Community, but they take awhile to load, and clicking tabs such as "Episode Guide" lead to dead pages. The page for Succession (a more recent series) exists, but it's completely empty and void of content. All in all, TV.com is an inactive website (for awhile now), that is buggy, slow, and filled with dead link or pages with no content. Also, their main shows tab is empty and display nothing. Time for it to go in my opinion. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The result at WP:TfD was delete (very strongly, with way more participants than usual!). The TV.com templates are currently in the process of being removed and deleted. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I am surprised that this List of episodes is a feature list article. Since MOS:TV and WP:TV have long-standing general consensus that one season, especially just 13 episodes do not warrant a List of episodes article. Should this List of episodes article be merge back to the main article? — YoungForever (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:TV.com name has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
Frietjes (
talk) 19:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Since when did Series Overview labeled as a subsection under the Episodes section on main articles for those without List of episodes is frown upon? This is stemming from this when an editor decided to remove Series overview subsection label out of nowhere claiming it is wrong/frown upon because MOS:TVOVERVIEW states that. I see nothing on MOS:TVOVERVIEW that explicitly said that. I also want to point out that fact that there are both with and without Series Overview labeled as a subsection on main articles for those without List of episodes articles are good television series articles. — YoungForever (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
that a series overview summarizes the entire episodes section. And so what? Nothing on MOS:TV and WP:TV explicitly say that a subheading for the series overview is wrong. I am not discussing it in two places. I posted on here because there is a more centralized discussion. Your talk is just your talk and I did not started the discussion there. — YoungForever (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I started the merger proposal of Candice Brown at " Talk:List of The Great British Bake Off finalists#Redirect Candice Brown?" -- George Ho ( talk) 03:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I recently had a disagreement with another editor re: the need to cite a source in the infobox episode count parameter. Before looking at dispute resolution or third party opinion, I thought I would seek out information from someone who also participates in Wikiproject Television. The article is How the West Was Won (TV series). The other user tagged the episode count as CN. I noted that episode counts for the infobox come from the episode table. Noting this article's episode list table was not transcluded, I did that first and noted this information, thus removing the CN tag. A discussion ensued on the talk page, which resulted in a stalemate. There is no specific information in the Project that indicates the answer to this with specificity. It's extrapolated from the fact that (1) the episode count is derived from the episode table, and (2) the infobox template states only that a citation is specifically required when the production count and aired count do not match (which makes sense). I understand that Wikipedia does not cite itself. However, it's standard practice for infobox episode counts in TV articles to be derived from the episode table. Does an experienced TV Project editor have any insight on this? Butlerblog ( talk) 18:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dismukes. Anybody interested are welcomed to participate. Thank you. Run n Fly ( talk) 17:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I've been having difficulty with assessing the edits that make up the International adaptations, Arabic version, and Other versions sections. In addition to these having no sources, it looks like vandalism to me with a lot of gibberish, either in English or whatever other languages are being placed there. Originally, this was just one section called Other versions, that was put in there starting in February. Given how that progressed, and seeing gibberish, I eventually decided to remove the section (which was also unsourced) [7], only to see the content return. Any thoughts on how to handle this one? MPFitz1968 ( talk) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of American television programs § The table for the list seems to be broken. There's an immediate issue here, and then a more general concern I've had for a while. The "immediate issue" is that the table at this article may not be rendering with sortability properly on mobile devices – in general, I think the 'colspan' section headers within the table are highly problematic and may be contributing to the sortability issue. So if someone who is technically proficient (esp. with tables) has any ideas here, they would be welcome...
The more general concern I've had for a while is that I strongly think
List of American television programs by debut date should be merged into
List of American television programs, now that the latter has switched to a sortable table format (and the former has always been an unmitigated disaster of a "list" article!) – it would be relatively straight forward to convert the 'Aired Years' column at the latter into two 'Debut date' and 'End date' (or 'Last aired date') columns...
Anyway, if anybody cares to comment about either issue, please feel free. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
In a table like
Arrowverse#Television series, where we have links to the parent article and season articles, would it be beneficial to add a link to an episode list article for each series, where such a list already exists? Perhaps using something like |series=''[[Arrow (TV series)|Arrow]]'' <br /> ([[List of Arrow episodes|episodes]])
? Would there be a better way? -- /
Alex/
21 02:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The same argument could be applied to the season article links, not sure if you meant what I think, but I always found it very strange that clicking on the number link in the "Season" cell of the series overview table (in a section such as Arrow (TV series)#Episodes) leads not to the season page, but to the List of episode page, where we don't even show the episode summaries. That's a pretty WP:ASTONISH and WP:EGG link. -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
includeonly List of Arrow episodes/includeonly#Season 1 (2012–13)
the link should be Arrow (season 1)
and everything works as is expected. In the LoE article, nothing is lost either, as the Series overview is right under the ToC anyways so section links are still there. --
Gonnym (
talk) 13:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Awake (TV series) § Merging proposal from List of Awake episodes into Awake (TV series). —
YoungForever
(talk) 13:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The Nanny is one of those articles that has both a 'Characters' section and a 'Cast' section, so I'm looking for ideas/suggestions on how best to merge these sections into one... In fact, I'm looking for advice on how to clean up the article generally, as it's definitely not in the best MOS:TV shape it could be... TIA. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
List of Red vs. Blue episodes is (rightly) tagged for excessive size, but I originally merged everything into the main List of article because there's nothing out there in terms of sources. I mean nothing. There's absolutely no good reliable sources that can be used for recaps, or any good secondary sources for anything. In situations like this (a webseries) I guess the question is does it make sense to just either cut the entire thing down to just the list, or does it even make sense to have anything more detailed than a season listing (which could go in the main article?) Not like you could ever feature a list with so few opportunities for real sourcing. Would love some opinions from people not really familiar with it/familiar with dealing with web series. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Some editors are, without reason, reverting my removal of unsourced, fansitey content. I'd like additional opinions on the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 13:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
RuPaul's Drag Race (season 13) 816,288 27,209 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 15:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:The Mighty Ducks: Game Changers § Co-starring. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. —
YoungForever
(talk) 13:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Please tell me that WP:TV has some sort of guideline or suggestions at least for how we should handle {{ Short description}}s at TV series articles? Mostly what I've seen from this are examples like "American television series" or "American television sitcom", which seems appropriate for this. Something like this is very non-standard, and even goes against policies at WP:NCTV. Further I've seen people attempt to do some really not "short descriptions" at some articles – stuff like, for example, "1984–1989 television comedy that aired on NBC" type of thing.
So is there any guidance on how we should {{ Short description}}s going forward? It would be good it WP:TV has some sort of consistent formatting with these. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
American legal drama television seriesis the {{ Short description}} or sometimes the year when it premiered is added in the front like this
2020 American legal drama television series. — YoungForever (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
no more than about 40 characters. I don't mind "[year] television series", and WP:SDDATES seems to like it too, but it seems no-one understands the purpose is to help a mobile user (and, in the planned design revamp, desktop users) identify which of multiple pages they are looking for in the search bar. Just "television series" can do this in any case where there is no TV series of the same name (in which case, the title probably includes the years as diambiguators, which is then enough information). — Bilorv ( talk) 10:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
no more than about 40 charactersas it is for {{ Short description}}. — YoungForever (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
If anyone is looking for stuff to do, a lot (most? all?) of the Ugly Betty episodes such as In the Stars sections don't follow WP:LAYOUT or MOS:TV. Gonnym ( talk) 11:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Should web series that don't get broadcast on any subscription or free-to-air channel be assigned this project? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 02:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The Marvel Cinematic Universe task force, a joint task force between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Television, has just been created. Please join if you wish! - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I have prepared a draft article about YouTube Pride 2021 celebrations User:Peony1432/sandbox. While on first look this appears to be a WP: Crystal Ball event, there are exceptions for well-publicized events that are newsworthy. I am hoping for input and advice from members of this project about how to improve this draft. I should disclose that I have a conflict of interest because I work for Google. Thanks Peony1432 ( talk) 21:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
for the longest ever article title goes too American Society of Cinematographers Award for Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in an Episode Episode of a One-Hour Television Series – Commercial !! Govvy ( talk) 10:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This is a notification to 6 relevant wikiprojects. Most of the talk page Talk:High dynamic range, though it seems like a long-running discussion, is only the last day or two since I discovered the renaming and other things going on there, much of which I reverted pending discussion. Please see and comment if this area interests you. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite. I know there's a move on to establish a separate WP:NTV and that section isn't being considered, but this is important enough for you know of (especially as some 20 people have contributed to those discussions in the last 6 months), and we'd appreciate feedback as we start the road of rewriting this for the purpose of seeking elevation to guideline status.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've cleared out at ton of series at {{ Netflix original upcoming series}} (comparison to previous version), per WP:NTV, draftifying series that have not yet commenced filming. -- / Alex/ 21 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
New discussion at Template Talk:RuPual's Drag Race. Contributions are all welcome. Thanks -- 78.148.25.46 ( talk) 06:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Steven Universe: The Movie § Split soundtrack into its own article. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 22:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
(Not to mention numerous unrated articles)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Popular pages-- Coin945 ( talk) 06:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Tasks. This page is currently unused, but the project might find it useful (if it's used), in which case project participants may want to consider the case for deletion. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 15:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Would winning an Emmy Award meet (c) of item 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I'm not talking about a Regional Emmy Award, but one of the national ones. The reason I'm asking about this has to do with Draft:Todd Masters. There are lots of issues (possible COI, formatting, NPOV, etc.) associated with that draft, but Masters (if the draft is correct) has won multiple Emmys. There are some other things written in the draft that might indicate that he also meets items 1 and 3 of CREATIVE, but the main thing that stands out is the Emmy Awards. If Masters is unable to meet CREATIVE, it seems unlikely that he's going to meet GNG for his activities in other areas like his environmental work; so, I guess everything is riding on CREATIVE. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that Star (Disney+) has a lot of exclusive international distribution of American TV series. Is appropriate to call the list of American TV series Star original programming on {{ Star original programming}}? The primary networks are American TV networks, not Star as Star is a just a secondary network. — YoungForever (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
If you don't have Wikipedia:Notability (television) on your watchlist, and have been unaware, some recent additions have been made by Kingsif to get this notability guideline very close to a site-wide RfC to (finally) implement. Some more discussion is occurring on that talk page regarding some small additions and rearranging in this discussion, so please join to add any more, pre-RfC thoughts. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
With the hiatus of Showbuzz Daily, I have seen some articles cite SpoilerTV. I don't know how they have finals but apparently they do. I believe this is an unreliable source though, and it is odd to cite an article with "DarkUFO" as the author...
The only reliable sources that give final ratings are the Associated Press, which does a weekly top 20 viewers, and the Los Angeles Times, which is more a highlights of viewers than details for everything. None give 18–49 ratings. Should we resort to using preliminaries from Deadline, TVLine, etc. for shows that do not have their final numbers reported, and add a note or something? At this point I think something is better than nothing. With ratings so low nowadays it's not like there's that much difference between preliminaries and finals for most shows anyways. But for any cable show ratings, RIP. Heartfox ( talk) 22:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
There's really no reason why TVSeriesfinale can't be used for final ratings sourcing for shows until a better source becomes available. It's used as sourcing for ratings graphs on list of episodes pages for a great many shows. I don't know their update schedule but I think they have the finals within a few days to a week of each show airing. 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 20:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
if/when better one becomes available, the better source should replaced TV Series Finale source. — YoungForever (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm also having issues with another editor on the Superman & Lois page when adding this source. For the record I only reverted him twice on the page. I don't know why I was tagged as "reverting" when initially adding the TVSeriesfinale ratings as a source to that page as I didn't revert anyone. But editting as an IP has its downsides I guess. 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 21:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Yowza. Looks like Showbuzz Daily is officially over now. Magitroopa ( talk) 19:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought these thoughts from Bill Gorman(TV Grim Reaper) were interesting. [9] & [10] He seems to believe that these days no one actually pays for Nielsen ratings, he thinks they come from unauthorized sources. Do we actually have any evidence that SpoilerTV pay for access? The way ShowbuzzDaily abruptly poofed away would back up Bill Gormans thoughts. I mean, he did run the largest television ratings website in the world and would know all about the technical side of things. 81.96.245.175 ( talk) 19:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think we should keep using SpoilerTV for now. What exactly made Showbuzz more of an RS than SpoilerTV? Is it considered unreliable because it's "fan-created"? If so, that's ridiculous. We should stick a "better source needed" next to ratings from SpoilerTV for now until we find a better source or find that SpoilerTV is just as reliable. wizzito | say hello! 21:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I've found another source that uses Nielsen Data called Ratings Ryan. My only problem with this site is that it's a blog site. Just putting this out since theirs no consensus about sourcing SpoilerTV. kpgamingz ( rant me) 00:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Source: Nielsen Media Research via SpoilerTV. — YoungForever (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
User:Gonnym User:Alucard 16 please see the discussion for merging a page here [11] and please see the sources there is no spin off it’s continued in same season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.70.117 ( talk) 11:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at the cast, the list there seems overkill, I wasn't sure if it needed stripping down, how to handle it. Cheers, thanks. Govvy ( talk) 08:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Q-Force (TV series)#Requested move 25 June 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lennart97 ( talk) 15:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I have done a discussion about the Johnny Test article getting split, as the "seventh season" may actually a different, separate series, according to what Netflix says. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 18:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I can see the alert list, but where is the simple del sort page? I have an AfD I wanted to add to the del sort. Govvy ( talk) 07:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Degrassi: The Next Generation 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. ToQ100gou ( talk) 02:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
For years we used Showbuzz Daily to find out how many views the premiere of a TV episode generated. Now that the website no longer publishes views, are there any other websites we can use to find the views of certain TV shows? 172.250.44.165 ( talk) 05:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Additional viewpoints would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doomsday_Prophecy. BOVINEBOY 2008 13:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
So, per MOS:LISTINTRO, I added an introductory sentence to the cast lists for Critical Role's first and second campaigns. I then thought to compare against the examples within MOS:TVCAST – only to find that there are no such introductions. I've self reverted my edits; but just want to ask if the lack of any opening sentence is an oversight, a case of WP:IAR, or project consensus? I had a very quick look through the archives here and at MOS:TV; but I couldn't find any relevant discussion with the search terms I used. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob ( talk) 12:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Additional perspectives are appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Engagement. BOVINEBOY 2008 16:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I want to question a source of this edit on Chicago P.D.. I don't think the source on it is reliable. BattleshipMan ( talk) 01:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) § Catherine Zeta-Jones. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. —
YoungForever
(talk) 13:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I attempting to address the issues brought up at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nigel Kneale/archive1 in order to get the article back into a shape warranting keeping FA status. However, I'm just not that familiar with the subject, and I'm starting to get to the point where I'm at about as much as I'll be able to do. Any help addressing the issues here would be much appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
What's with the weird duplication? I can't see the where the second infobox code is! Govvy ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
What exactly is the 'proper' usage of
Template:End date? I would think (and have thought) that this template should only be used when there is an actual date to list (hence the syntax- {{End date|year|month|day}}
). However, per
Template:Infobox television season, the last_aired
parameter says, "...While the season is airing, {{End date|present}}
should be used."
On the other side, Template:Infobox television seems to disagree with this, saying that 'present' can be changed to the date the last episode aired using the end date template, and that the end date template should be used if the show is ended.
If one of these is the 'correct' usage of the parameter, shouldn't the one template (between Template:Infobox television season & Template:Infobox television) that is incorrect be fixed? Magitroopa ( talk) 05:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
|last_aired=present
or |last_aired={{End date|present}}
doesn't matter. -- /
Alex/
21 10:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
|last_aired={{End date|present}}
makes no sense ("present" is literally not an "end date") – it should simply be |last_aired=present
. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 14:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I split List of Dead Ringers episodes from the main article due to its sheer length; which by itself has over 166 KB of content. It still needs some more MOS cleanup, including reorganization of the specials, selection of unique colors for the summary table in the main article, and possibly removal of fancruft. An RM is open for Dead Ringers as well. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Cleo & Cuquin is an animated children's television series. I think I have cleaned it up after some unconstructive editing in the last few months and would appreciate it if some of you wanted to add it to your watch lists. TSventon ( talk) 18:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I've opened a proposal to merge the articles for individual AFI Award ceremonies into a single article. If you're interested, any comments would be much appreciated at Talk:American Film Institute#Merger proposal for AFI Awards. Thanks! RunningTiger123 ( talk) 00:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 18 § Template:DragRaceProgressTable/5.
Gonnym (
talk) 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Gonnym (
talk) 15:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Could I please get some feedback at Talk:Invincible (TV series)#Infobox image? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 17:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Love Island (American season 3) "Exclusive episodes".
TheDoctorWho
(talk) 18:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
TheDoctorWho
(talk) 18:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Over a year ago a group of inactive TV WikiProjects were converted to task forces and joined a group of other TV-related (mostly inactive) task forces. As the table below shows, almost all task forces related to TV series haven't been active in years, most since before 2013. Keeping them in active state (regardless of an inactive notice some use on their page) means that there is a lot of needles maintenance surrounding them, including hundreds of pointless categories; the need to update dozens of rows in {{ WikiProject Television}} when a new task force is added; many unseen XfD discussion notices; and many other automatic or semi-automatic bot operations that no one cares about.
To the editors who were members of one of these task forces and to the editors who enjoy these TV series - this is in no way personal or means that your program isn't deserving of a task force. It's just an objective fact that no community collaboration is taking place on those pages and issues that do get posted, don't get answered as there just aren't editors watching those pages. Closing those task forces and redirecting to the main TV project would allow better collaboration for those programs.
Also note that there are also inactive non-TV series task forces, but to not make this proposal even harder, I've left them out.
I propose to officially close these inactive task forces (note: the ones in the active table aren't included in the proposal):
Additionally I propose that no new TV series related task forces be created without gaining consensus here first.
Inactive task forces
|
---|
Active task forces
| ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Note, if don't oppose the general proposal but only oppose a closing of a specific task force, it would be helpful if you state that instead. Gonnym ( talk) 12:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I got this odd question, that I've started having in regards to articles that are created for contestants on talent programmes - with the exception of people who have already begun a career and have an article already, should editors be making articles for contestants who have none on Wikipedia and who's only notability per WP:BIO is connected to that programme? Or should such articles be created by editors, on condition it remain as a draft until they have made further appearances beyond the programme, or have had their backgrounds checked to find out if they had worked before appearing on the programme? GUtt01 ( talk) 21:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Discussion launched by Dutchy45 at Category talk:Establishments#Exclude_TV_series_debuts_from_Establishments_in_countryname, which is entirely about categories within the scope of this project.
Editors interested in joining the discussion should post their comments on the category talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Talk:Prodigal Son (TV series) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — YoungForever (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It's become fairly common for episodes of TV series to get early release dates via the network's streaming service. I'll use AMC+ as an example, episodes are released three days prior to their broadcast dates, while season premieres are generally released a week early. Kevin Can F**k Himself is an example of this, I noticed the dates in the episode table were for their AMC+ dates and changed them back to their air dates. Is this what should be doing? The episode table is using "Original air date", so we should obviously be using the air dates, but we can easily change the table to read "Original release date" and use the streaming release dates. However, with the use of the viewership column, it would make sense to keep the air dates. Basically, the question is, and I feel we need a consensus on this for consistency across the project: do we keep "air dates" as the primary release date for any television series that is traditionally broadcast and simply note the early release via streaming in prose? Thoughts? Drovethrughosts ( talk) 13:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of Black Mirror episodes § Ratings graph/table. To summarise: is six episodes enough to use {{
Television ratings graph}}? -- /
Alex/
21 07:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
About two days ago, I try to submit a plot summary to The Chicken Squad which is absolutely my own idea. However, BaldiBasicsFan calls my contribution "copyvio" without proof. Because of this, the user has reverted me twice. Well, what's your take on the case? 104.172.119.172 ( talk) 14:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why users make summaries that are about less than 100 words. Even if the summaries created are in your words, they can be considered COPYVIO due to them looking like they are paraphrased from another website. COPYVIO or not, next time write summaries that are 100 to 200 words in length, per MOS:TVPLOT. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 18:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe they did this at Johnny Test (2021 TV series) as well — not unreasonable as a potential close paraphrasing, but the plot summaries were also poorly written with ambiguous constructs like [Johnny and Dukey] destroy deadly weapons to people who use them. First removal: Special:Diff/1034390733. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Now that AT&T has spun-off DirecTV, and along with it, the streaming service AT&T TV (which is now known as DirecTV Stream, and I'm leaving aside my thoughts on how awful AT&T named their entertainment products), the infoboxes have been changed to reflect that, and now that the services outside of one word have the same name, but have already shared common channel lineups, I'm suggesting that ( DirecTV/ Stream) be used in whichever 'sat_serv_#=' entry in the infobox is used, saving us having to fill the 'iptv_serv_#=' field with a duplicative channel for Stream. Does anyone have any objection to this? Nate • ( chatter) 03:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
The Disney Family Singalong, The Disney Family Singalong: Volume II, and The Disney Holiday Singalong are television specials which aired on ABC (United States) during the pandemic. The articles for these three programs have been nominated for merging. Discussion has been limited, so I'm hoping some other editors can weigh in. Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 14:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)