![]() | 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 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
This has been an issue brewing on the Survivor pages over the last few weeks but readily applies across most of the competitive reality show pages.
@ Lee Vilenski: since around December 2021 had been looking to make Survivor: Borneo a GA and as part of that, saw the tables needed to be revised to comply with MOS and WP:ACCESS in regards to color use. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#GA push. It was clear this was a needed change, as most of these tables heavily used the tribe colors heavily and too often to impart information (which should never be done). Lee along with others has since been proceeding to propagate similar changes these changes to other seasons of Survivors. At first these changes were reverted by IPs, but in the past few weeks we have several registered editors complaining these make the tables unusable and other factors, that the colors were fine, and other arguments.
Really, this goes towards the general issue that was discussed previously here about the standardization of progression for competitive reality shows where it was pointed out that most shows in trying to adopt the colors of the show itself were violating the MOS and ACCESS aspects. (using color for info, using non-HTML5 colors, not picking colors that are colorblind friendly, etc.) But I would even add more that with something like Survivor, there is a level of detail that may be almost to the point of trivality for WP. Yes, constestant lists and elimination orders make sense, but considering how the show is summarized in RSes, voting tables are almost inappropriate. This is an additional issue atop the color and format problems.
Basically, I think we need to readdress not only the color and standardization of these tables (on a per-series basis) but making sure that we're not running effectively fan wikis for these shows. -- Masem ( t) 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated The Wire 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. Z1720 ( talk) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this though it might be as good as any other possible pages to talk about.
Recently, there has been IP addresses which keep on changing some info of the Simpsons related articles such as the production code and directors which I usually revert when I see these changes. Hopefully now more of you would be aware of that disruption as time goes by, especially as one IP address range is currently blocked. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The
documentation for Infobox television doesn't say a lot about how the |distributor=
parameter should be used, just "the names of the original distribution company or companies". Does that mean at the time the show was produced, or does it mean the first time it was distributed to someone other than the original broadcaster? Does "distribution" mean sales to broadcasters or to the general public via video cassette or DVD? I see lots of articles that appear to list the current distributor, or in the case of shows 50 years old it could be a distributor from 20 years ago, or a present-day company that bought out the distributor of 20 years ago. Could we have some clearer guidance in the infobox documentation?
Dr Greg
talk
18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Another IP vandal is hitting the distributor parameters of articles just today. We need to get rid of this parameter once and for all. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Rough Crossing (TV series) seems like it may be a hoax. All of the actors, the production company, and everything else associated is a redlink. The only hits I can find are directory listings like IMDb and Wikipedia mirrors. For a show that aired from 1997-2005, you'd think there'd be some trace of it online, a plot synopsis, or info about the actors, but I haven't found a thing to prove that this even existed. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I would request everyone here, who specifically work for this wikiproject, to comment at Talk:Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah#Proposed decisions. Regards, Itcouldbepossible Talk 05:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I created a draft for Stranger Things (season 5), the final season of the series. Any help in keeping it updated would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Last year or longer I made a proposal to replace the color boxes for Template:Series Overview by creating a vertical colored thick border between the season/series number and the total episode count. The consensus was against it because it was hard to distinguish. Since then, I tried to create a new rationale on how to standardize color usage in templates, thinking there could be a better way to show color and still be presented well and not like some amateur. the more I tried to create this potential rationale, the more I realized how unnecessary it is for the series overview template. I even go as far as to say that they end up being a distraction when trying to navigate between seasons. And the shorter series are too short that require them. There's no perfect middle ground length of a series where the color boxes are necessary and improve readability/navigation. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 23:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@ IJBall: It's ok if you don't understand why it's unprofessional. It objectively is an unprofessional design for a template to try to distinguish seasons by an arbitrary color in an isolated undefined column. it's not important to me at this moment to be validated by my peers on that. A fact is simply a fact.
But to clarify, I wouldn't be bringing this up if it was optimization for optimization's sake. It is a "problem" that needs to be "solved". The "problem" is that color indicators in the series overview template is a visual distraction, not a visual aid. I'm not saying it's a fun addition that causes no harm. The extra column makes it harder to read the information presented. Because your eyes draw toward the color over written text, it can at times be hard to read the information presented. Anything with +10 Seasons isn't helping. But other times it doesn't provide a real benefit, just an imaginary one. I did have an idea for making alternating background colors for rows similar to template:track listing with the addition of allowing to choose the color of the head and the alternating color range of the seasons. Something proved to help as a visual aid and is beneficial for both smaller series and large series. And MOS:TABLE makes no mention of gradients. So I thought the table can look something like this:
NO LONGER AVAILABLE
It's completely bare-bones. So don't feel limited to the color choices you see there. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 06:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
VS.
Season | Episodes | Aired |
---|---|---|
1
|
12 | October 2013 |
2
|
12 | November 2015 |
3
|
12 | December 2018 |
4
|
6 | January 2020 |
6 | February 2022 | |
5
|
12 | June 2022 |
6
|
12 | March 2023 |
10
|
12 | December 2023 |
100
|
12 | December 2049 |
OR
Season | Episodes | Aired | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 12 | October 2013 | |
2 | 12 | November 2015 | |
3 | 12 | December 2018 | |
4 | 6 | January 2020 | |
6 | February 2022 | ||
5 | 12 | June 2022 | |
6 | 12 | March 2023 | |
10 | 12 | December 2023 | |
100 | 12 | December 2049 |
plainrowheaders
so that they aren't bolded... But, frankly, that may be a problem with the suggested changes: the 'scope=row' header is supposed to go into the first cell in the row – with the suggestions, that would be the cells with the colors. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
sometimes you have to sacrifice optimum readability for what the client may wantmay be true for database design, but this is not a database, it is a visual chart intended to convey information quickly and help with navigation. Using alternating colours like the original suggestion above is helpful for large data tables when you are trying to follow which information is on which line, etc., but in a (usually) shorter overview table where each row corresponds to a different section you are just being misleading by making it look like there are two or three groupings going on instead of a list of distinct items. With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/article, and if the different colours are too similar then they can be changed to something with better contrast. However, it is important to note that the colours we use in this table are not actually arbitrary and mostly come directly from the promotional material for each season. The different colours are intended by the producers to be associated with different seasons, so you actually aren't far off with the
"Season blue" or "season red"comment. As for the two compromise suggestions, I feel like they are both just slightly worse versions of the current style, with the only difference being that the colours are smaller and harder to see (which goes against the whole accessibility thing). - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/articleThis is in theory. It makes sense that someone who has edited the article repeatedly may find it useful, but I'm having a difficult time defending it for first-time readers who are unfamiliar with the series and its structure. Even more so for first-time readers who see the series overview table for the first time. Especially because it is an awkward design just to reflect color is associated with the season #. And sometimes reprints of the season will change the promotional art and its dominant color too, so it's still highly subjective.
because they're no longer defined columns, your eyes wont focus on them as much as before- I think this is where are confusion is coming from, you think the main difference between the current design and Option B is that the colour is not in a "defined column" anymore. That may be technically true, but for anyone looking at the table who doesn't know that, it will be no different since in both styles it looks like a column of colours. I'm just pointing out that from a visual standpoint, with no knowledge of the technical side (i.e. the people that we are wanting to understand this), the only difference that can be seen between the two is that the column of colours in Option B is narrower. - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::#box {
::::::: width: 50px;
::::::: height: 50px;
::::::: background: linear-gradient(to bottom, red 50%, blue 50%);
:::::::}
@ Alex 21: i think it's a fair compromise. The vertical border is still there but for the most part it still advocates less eye-drifting because the column is smaller and not draws too much attention from the rest of the information. I would request bolding the numbers to further assist in navigation. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 19:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
So, is there agreement and a consensus to implement the changes to the colouring of the series overview, to convert from a separate HTML column to CSS formatting of the season number column? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyone able to add a title card or promotional artwork to the infobox at Generation Drag? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Anyone able to add a title card or promotional artwork to the infoboxes at Trixie Motel and The Book of Queer? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone tell me what's the difference between these categories:
It seems that Christian TV channels are categorised in one of these 4 categories; I am not sure if we should have so many, and how to decide which of these categories a given channel should be in? It seems to me that we just need "Christian television stations" and all the channels should be in that category. Kidburla ( talk) 11:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone find a source confirming the air dates of Eureka! (TV series)? The only reference with a date in the article is IMDb and it has a different year. Gonnym ( talk) 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the infobox image at Legendary (season 3) should be removed from Wikimedia Commons and uploaded locally under fair use.
Anyone able to help with this? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock 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. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 04:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't even know where to start with this- the article has had multiple issues since 2020/2021, including WP:COPYVIO issues. Beyond that, citations 165-210 are not showing up properly whatsoever unless in preview mode while editing (only when editing one section alone), and I have no idea where the problem is stemming from and how/what to fix at all. Any help would be greatly appreciated- but the article needs a massive amount of cleanup done... Magitroopa ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has requested for The Cheap Seats (Australian TV series) to be moved to The Cheap Seats. Since you had some involvement with The Cheap Seats (Australian TV series), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Happily888 ( talk) 01:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I know it's common for articles to use Template:television episode ratings to display DVR numbers, but I've noticed lately most tables are completely void of this information, making them completely pointless and mostly a waste of space as they just duplicate information found in the episode table. I know sources for expanded DVR numbers have been very limited or non-existent recently, so I'm not sure if that's the reason or they aren't enough interested editors in adding it. I did a sample of a few show from each major cable and broadcast television network to get a better grasp on it. The following are some articles with the number being how many episodes from each season have DVR numbers for them.
Cable
Network
It's clear there's more information for broadcast network shows vs. cable, so I can see the value in keeping them for regular network shows, but cable series it's seems to be unnecessary as the tables are mostly just empty displaying repetitive information found elsewhere in the article. And I don't think it's serves much purpose to create entire ratings tables just so we can display the 18-49 number is "0.1", which for 99% of readers won't even know what that means. I'm thinking there should be a threshold and if a certain number of episodes don't have DVR numbers, then the table should be deleted. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
For those familiar with the AfD process, I've submitted AfD requests for many of the articles of the winners of the seasons of MasterChef Australia. I know the consensus in the past has been that, generally speaking, being a winner of a reality show doesn't really qualify as being WP:N or WP:BIO. Some biased editors are trying to sway the consensus towards keep. I'd appreciate any other input. - SanAnMan ( talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The block-evading user 103.54.41.0/24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Dhaka added incorrect inofrmation to infoboxes of TV channel articles ( example 1, example 2). These edits should be reverted presumptively unless they are supported by the article text. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galaxy High#Requested move 30 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KQRY-LD#Requested move 31 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed splitting up the {{
RWRR}}
template that is used on The Real World/Road Rules/The Challenge and other related pages. You can find the discussion on the
talk page for the template. Posting here to try and get more eyes and opinions on discussion. General "should we split or should we not", along with two option if we do split. Thank you.
WikiVirus
C
(talk)
18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at Template talk:Unreported UK viewers about the future use of the template due to the changes that BARB have made to their website. Any comments that could be made about the template, as well as the introduction of a new template, would be very welcome. – DarkGlow • 13:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested page split at I Can See Your Voice, with the intention of splitting out the international franchise section that was merged into this article in 2020. Any opinions of WikiProject members are appreciated. Felix QW ( talk) 17:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion on The Lake talk page suggesting to add drama to genres as it has elements of that. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on using template to ref awards at Template talk:Awards ref please Indagate ( talk) 17:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Requesting input at this discussion from other experienced television editors. A user has added ratings data for this series, which is a streaming show on Paramount+, based on some broadcast reruns of one (out of five) season from years after the episodes were first released. Though I don't think there have been explicit guidelines against including ratings for reruns (until I recently added some wording to MOS:TVRECEPTION with some support from a couple editors there), it is definitely my experience that we don't do this. It is especially significant that we avoid misleading data for an article like this which has a long history of editors and IPs trying to add negative opinions to the article that don't align with the sources and wider coverage. I have told the editor that they need to prove why this is more noteworthy than any other ratings data for reruns by providing sources for context and commentary, but they have ignored me and continue to add the information. Any help in handling this situation would be most appreciated. - adamstom97 ( talk) 03:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
What are the rules regarding TV episode titles?
I'm wondering because I've noticed that The Ghost Squad has the same episode titles listed in the episode guides on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Tubi TV, Channel 5 etc and it's original network Channel 4.
Yet on-screen it doesn't show those titles anywhere...
...However they do have different English counties and regions as the on-screen titles.
I'm not sure what to do with the titles on IMDB as they only let you add 1 episode title, and no alternative episode titles...
...However on here, we could keep the episode guide titles, with the on-screen titles on the right next to them.
Eg.
|AltTitle=
parameter...)An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Just Sam with List of American Idol finalists. If you are interestexd, you may join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Who made this unneccessary thing?
I want to edit some shows about current Distributors but this rule come to my way and blocking me. C'mon people? How can this works? We must be demolish it.
"Only add the original distributor of the show if the show has one, as Infobox television says "The names of the original distribution company or companies." If the show doesn't have a distributor, leave it blank." Extormophie Exolus ( talk) 23:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Samie. Most of the Time Distributor means currently right holders and needs to be change because of owner or platform changes so we need to edit this parameter with just one sentence. It's not be that much bad. I suggest current distributor and former distributor eras for old tv shows. It's makes jobs easier Extormophie Exolus ( talk) 01:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Is it necessary/appropriate to label shows as "streaming" in the lead sentence? I strongly feel that is neither necessary or appropriate. We don't label things as "network" or "cable" in the lead. We always list what streaming service it is on in the lead, so the information is there, but putting it in the lead puts way too much emphasis on the fact that it's streaming, and is as if we're treating streaming as being different than just television. What even is a streaming series is not even clear. Is One Day at a Time (2017 TV series), which first 3 seasons were on Netflix before moving to the channel Pop for its final season a streaming show? What about BoJack Horseman which first streamed on Netflix before Comedy Central started to show reruns. What about shows that are first available on a streaming service in one country but airs on cable in another country? It makes no sense to me to list it as such. However, @ User:BrickMaster02 apparently disagrees, though I'm not sure why. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 23:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Interesting to see the previous discussion on the matter. There seemed to pretty clearly be a consensus there that "streaming television show" should be avoided while saying something like "that was released via streaming on Netflix" in the lead sentence is perfectly fine, which I completely agree with. My problem with listing streaming television in the lead is that it suggests that there is inherit and fundamental difference between broadcast and streaming television. However doing it the other way (first suggested by IJBall) doesn't create that distinction and is just noting how it was distributed. I'm going to ping the participants in the previous discussion to see if they would like to weigh in on it again. @ User:Masem, @ User:Facu-el Millo, @ User:Spanneraol, @ User:Joeyconnick. I'm also considering making this an RFC, just so that whatever decision we come to carries more weight and an official consensus will be established. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 16:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Would like to ask if sourcing is required (yes I'm fully aware of WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, but please read on) for the production staffs in Template:Infobox television such as developer, music, executive_producer, producer, and possibly other fields. I'm asking this in the context of Korean drama, in which the broadcasting networks doesn't published the information for music, executive_producer, and producer in the drama's official website, the official website would only published the information of director, writer, and production companies, rarely the information of developer, music, executive_producer, and producer.
However, these information can be found in the drama's end credits of each episodes, however one of the issues is that not all Korean dramas are distributed on notable streaming platform/service such as Netflix and Disney+. And obviously, we can't use piracy websites as a means of sourcing. Hence
— Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 12:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
|distributor=
parameter, I'm pretty sure there would be greater resistance to removing developer, music, and esp. executive_producer, producer, etc. parameters from the IB. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
14:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Is The Debbie Drake Show notable? She seems to being a notable icon on 1960's American television are these sources good enough [ TV: One, Two - TIME] [ This 1960s exercise book illustrates everything wrong with our pursuit of fitness - Vox][ Jumping Through Hoops: The History of Women Hitting (and Hating) the Gym (vice.com)] [ Debbie Drake: America's First Female TV Fitness Guru - LIFE] [ DEBBIE DRAKE HAS SURGERY - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)] [ Working Out from Home for Women, From Jack Lalanne to Yoga Youtube (jezebel.com)] Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested to know that this month Women in Red is focusing on Comedians, many of whom are associated with TV. Please feel free to join in.-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This may be a fairly niche topic, but it's something I see every year with the Emmys. The official Emmy nominations list does not mention individual episode submissions for lead and supporting acting categories, unlike most other categories ( link). However, the nominees still submit one episode each for consideration, and those submissions are "leaked" and added to various articles as part of the official nomination. So, should the episode submissions be mentioned or omitted? I personally think they should be kept out (except in external links at the main ceremony articles) since they're never officially named with the nominees. Also, the overall series nominees submit specific episodes but we never mention those, so I think it is reasonable to discourage acting submissions as well. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 04:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The first has content, but is at the wrong name. The second is the correct title, but is currently a redirect to the first. I'm not sure if a move is the right way to fix this, or if there has been cut/pasting involved also. Can someone look further into this? MB 14:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I had a brief discussion with DonIago over at Talk:Family Guy about how every episode of shows such as The Simpsons, South Park, and Futurama have individual articles, while Family Guy does not. Long story short, I'd like to ask about which episode articles from these four shows (and maybe more, if I'm missing any that could be important for the purpose of this discussion) should remain, and which ones should be redirected/deleted. I could be bold and do it all myself, but as someone with only a surface-level knowledge of these shows, I wouldn't at all know where to start. 100.7.36.213 ( talk) 21:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello all- would appreciate some help/clarification regarding 'last-aired' within Template:Infobox television. Essentially, Total DramaRama has recently aired its season three finale (" 3rd season finale"). However, fans appear to believe that this third season finale is the series finale, with most either changing the end date unsourced on Wikipedia, or attempting to use this as a source (some random fan/unverified account getting a direct message from a supposed crew member of the show- very much WP:NOTRS).
Two things:
1. How exactly should this be handled within the infobox with 'last-aired'? I've discussed a bit with administrator Drmies, which can be seen at User talk:Drmies#Total DramaRama. Would appreciate some clarification regarding how/when the end date should be inserted, as the 3rd season finale has aired, but there is no source(s) indicating the show has been cancelled, as well as no source(s) indicating the show has been renewed whatsoever. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all along, but I was of the impression it would remain as 'present' until July 23, 2023, if no sources have emerged (and no renewals/no new episodes have aired) by that time.
2. Simple enough- if possible (maybe I've been looking in the wrong places??), would be greatly appreciated to have help getting source(s) regarding the series has ended. Not sure if there are any out there or not, but any source confirming cancellation/end of the series will easily/quickly end this altogether
Much thanks. Magitroopa ( talk) 02:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired.I know Drmies argued for updating the date because the documentation notes
This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date, but the "12 months" sentence makes it clear to me that we shouldn't make the implication until time elapses. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 21:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The article ESPNU Coaches Spotlight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable, simple as that.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
100.7.36.213 (
talk)
18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article ESPNU Inside the Polls has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable, simple as that.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
100.7.36.213 (
talk)
18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article ESPNU Recruiting Insider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable, simple as that.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
100.7.36.213 (
talk)
18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered this ignored gem that needs a lot of love thanks to my work at GAN. It is quite incomplete and needs more entries. It seems to also be a bit UK-heavy in places (read the definition for "zoom"!!). I'm cross-posting to a few projects to encourage editors to add germane entries. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Episode 39 (Kuruluş: Osman)#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 05:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Question: Should films released from ad-supported streamers (so called "AVOD's") such as Tubi and Freevee be considered to be "television films" in the same way films from cable channels like Lifetime and Hallmark are? Or should they be considered to be "streaming films" in the same way films released on ad-free services like Netflix are?... Any thoughts on this question? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Does this WikiProject have a page that discusses the reliability of sources -- something like this, from the video games WP? Even a short list would be helpful to those of us not familiar with all the websites that get cited. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Can someone look at the Nickelodeon edits/reverts that are going on? Related to this first revert, and the most recent revert. And this talk page discussion.
Initially user @ Magical Golden Whip: reverted the content saying it was not appropriate to add while a discussion was going on on the talk page of another article (Dan Schneider article). User @ Jpcase: added the content back in, saying that discussions on a seperate article were not reason to revert edits on the Nickelodeon article. Anyway, that is why the discussion on the Nickelodeon talk page references a copy paste from another article's talk page discussion.
If anyone wants to take a look we could use another set of eyes. Thanks. Anybar ( talk) 05:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed merging Saved by the Bell: Wedding in Las Vegas into the article for Saved by the Bell: The College Years. See merger proposal here. At present, we are two for, one against. That's a majority, but is it enough of a consensus to proceed w/ the merger after the week has elapsed? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
On Sept. 2, Zvig47 moved the article Entergalatic from Entergalactic (TV series) to the non-standard Entergalactic (TV special), due to a change in formatting for the Netflix show. As "(TV special)" is non-standard disambiguation under WP:NCTV, it would seem like the best course of action would be to move this to Entergalactic (film), as this is now planned to be just a one-off "special" release, akin to a "TV film". Any objections to this? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Tv special is the best way to describe this. For instance, Werewolf by Night (TV special) has the same disambiguation. It does not meet the standards for a film or tv film. It’s going to be the length of a tv episode and there will only be one. It has been described by Netflix themselves as a special. Zvig47 ( talk) 22:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation should be based on reliable sources. If the content is sourced as a special, then it's a special. NCTV is not a policy, merely a guideline; there are standards, but zero concrete rules. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
"TV special" is a meaningless term in regards to Netflix and Disney+ shows.That's not true in any sense. The disambiguation is in regards to the content, not how or where it's presented. Thus, something on a streaming service that is in the vein of your CBS Holiday TV special can be called a "TV special". - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 23:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Just because a guideline doesn't mention (TV special)
and (TV pilot)
doesn't mean they're prohibited. Does it say Any other disambiguation is correct and should not be used.
? If not, this doesn't violate any guidelines.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
05:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
there is opposition to that in NCTVWhere is this in past discussions?
we shouldn't create new disambiguators for frankly rare-to-very rare casesDab'ed articles in the subcategories Category:Television specials would disagree, as I've seen a number just on a cursory look that already use "TV special" or others that probably could.
no one is interested in coming up with an efficient, rational naming system for WP:TVit appears from this discussion that editors are feeling "TV special" should be a valid option given it's a pretty common term in the industry. And if we need something more formal like an RfC, then we should do that. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
is a marketing term. Maybe for real-world/news coverage instances, sure. But in fictional instances such as the classic holiday programming, I wouldn't call that marketing. Or also something like the live musical performances NBC and Fox have done. I'd call those "TV specials" too. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
opposition to [this] in NCTV? -- Alex_21 TALK 12:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
In other news... Moonlight (American TV series) is a WP:GA (since 2008) – it was out-of-date in terms of current MOS:TV section ordering, and I just fixed that. But that's not the point of this post... The series ran for just one season of 16-episodes in 2007–08. Despite this, List of Moonlight episodes is another one of these WP:FLs (also since 2008) for a one-season TV series. Obviously, the episodes summary table should be merged back to the main article, as per MOS:TVSPLIT, WP:FL or not.
I don't intend to do anything about this at this time. Just making others aware (in case somebody wants to take a stab at a merge). I'm guessing the first step would be opening an "official" WP:MERGE discussion. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I've listed the main article for the Degrassi franchise for PR. I want to see how it can be improved for potential FA nomination. See it here. ToQ100gou ( talk) 04:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
There's a discussion about the type of content that should go into this episode list article that, while diplomatic so far, doesn't seem likely to reach any consensus without additional parties involved. Would anyone care to share an opinion there? Thanks! -- Fyrael ( talk) 06:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
For the past week or so I've been working on creating a task force specifically for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul related articles and i just now realized I should probably ask here if its a good idea? Personally I think the sheer popularity of both shows is enough to make them deserving of their own task forces but beyond that both shows have an article for every episode, a lot of which could definitly do with some cleaning up/expanding. I think a dedicated task force could help this. Thoughts? Here is what ive done so far: Task Force WIP FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
It was a long-ago created list, but I just wanted to remind WP:TV about User:Alex 21/sandbox/No episode table, which is a list of all articles that use {{ Episode list}} but not {{ Episode table}}; i.e. articles that are still using hardcoded episode table headers. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I have a question are these sources good enough to either create a Debbie Drake article or The Debbie Drake Show, TV: One, Two - TIME , Fitness guru Jack LaLanne's exercise legacy | CBC News, In the 60s, Men and Women Both Tuned in to Debbie Drake | OrangeBean Indiana, DEBBIE DRAKE HAS SURGERY - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com), Debbie Drake: America's First Female TV Fitness Guru - LIFE, Guest Post: THE PELOTON WIFE AND DEBBIE DRAKE - Physical Culture Study, LIFE - Google Books, Corpsman - Google Books , Working Out from Home for Women, From Jack Lalanne to Yoga Youtube (jezebel.com) Dwanyewest ( talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Am I wrong for understanding sourcing in a lead as being unecessary or redundant when all the information stated therein is already fully and reliably sourced in the body of any given article? Especially if the lead is just one pgraph of a few lines. Are there specific stipulations in the TV MOS, aside from for material that could be contested or be considered controversial, that I might have missed somehow, that state refs should still be included or linked? I was just reverted on a Netflix series article and told that I shouldn't edit based on personal preference, but that wasn't why I removed the ref links at all. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 02:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
In the specific article mentioned for this discussion, the references aren't harmful, especially since the lead is so small. However, since they are supported in the body of the article, I'd lean toward not featuring them, but again, for this specific instance, it's fine, though none of the material seems contentious enough or questioned to need the extra ref tags. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:THQ § Formatting troubles.
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
|NumParts=
parameter for accessability. --
Alex_21
TALK
02:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Anyone able to add title card or promotional artwork to the infobox? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, folks...
I asked about a year and a half ago if storyboard artists should be included in the Simpsons episode list parameters. The discussion leaned toward no so I got rid of them. In the past little while, they've popped up again on a fairly large number of lists (they're all over List of Futurama episodes, List of The Critic episodes, List of Family Guy episodes, etc.)
While I find these highly pointless and oppose including them (imo: for scripted cartoons like these, the storyboard artist is largely not that important, and they're all buried in the end credits so giving them list placement is WP:UNDUE), I don't feel like removing them from 40+ articles based on a sorta-consensus for one specific instance; someone would be bound to get mad at me. So I'll ask again I suppose. Anyone out there in favor of these? Nohomersryan ( talk) 05:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello I'm 69.255.225.138, the guy who edited most primetime shows with the storyboard artists. Sorry I keep doing this with most primetime shows, I know you guys already mention that storyboards are only allowed if they are credited in the title cards or opening sequence. But here is the thing. Why did you remove my storyboard edits for multiple shows (such as The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, etc.)? I worked very hard to improve those pages but now since you removed them, the writers and directors (specifically co-directors or co-writers) are a bit of a jumbled mess. I already read the discussions that storyboard artists are only allowed for children's shows (Nick, CN, Disney) but why you are removing the storyboards from almost all adult/primetime shows? If I try to find storyboards for a specific cartoon, they are all mainly children's shows. I know that for primetime shows, they were credited in the credits and only the writer and director were credited in the opening titles, but why you are taking away my hard work on adding the storyboard artists. I promise I will not add composers, overseas studios, supervising directors, etc. because it can overclog the page and it will become unreadable. Not to mention, I will also not add storyboard artists to live action programs, as storyboards are not a thing for live action shows, most live action shows are scripted, then filmed. Most people can only find the storyboard artists on IMDB but the problem with that is that it is always vandalized. Take a look on the SpongeBob episodes "Squirrel Jelly/The String" ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8260950/fullcredits/) and "Plankton's Intern/Patrick's Tantrum" (( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10084374/fullcredits/). Even if the writers and voice actors were correct, the animation department section was totally vandalized. They claim that the crew from The Simpsons Movie and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie have involvement in these episodes but that's is not true! How Rich Moore, Gregg Vanzo, Steven Dean Moore and Lauren MacMullan are involved in these episodes?! They didn't even work on SpongeBob, they worked on The Simpsons (although all the directors I mentioned aside from Steven Dean Moore have already left the show)! But you see, IMDB is not always a reliable source. Another reason why you should add the storyboard artists back for some shows is because some of the storyboard artist would be important later on in the animation industry. For example take Pendleton Ward, J.G. Quintel and Alex Hirsch. Their very first work is that they worked as storyboard artists and writers on The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack. After the show ended, Pendleton created Adventure Time, J.G. created Regular Show and Alex created Gravity Falls, all three shows are critically acclaimed and would later go out as some of the best cartoons of all time. Speaking of Gravity Falls, this is the show that future creators like Matt Braly, Dana Terrace and Shion Takeuchi have worked on. Matt and Dana are storyboard artists and Shion was a writer. After Gravity Falls ended, Matt would later create Amphibia, Dana would later create The Owl House, and Shion would later create Inside Job. There are more examples of this for children's shows such as Adventure Time, where Rebecca Sugar, Skyler Page and Elizabeth Ito first worked on that show before creating Steven Universe, Clarence and City of Ghosts respectively later in their careers. But now let's move on to the elephant in the room: primetime shows. Case in point, it is important to add the writer and director for an episode of a primetime series as they have different writers and directors per episode. But the same applies the storyboard artists, since because it takes over a year to make an episode a show, the writers, storyboard artists and directors change per episode due working on different episodes in the same time. Here are some examples of storyboard artists on primetime shows who would later be important to the animation industry. Dan Povenmire's first animation work was The Simpsons, which he was a character layout artist and storyboard artist for some episodes. But that is the same show that he worked on where he met Jeff "Swampy" Marsh. They became best friends and worked together on Rocko's Modern Life which they worked at the same time as The Simpsons. Speaking of Rocko, this is where SpongeBob creator Stephen Hillenberg got his first animation job as a director, storyboard artist and writer. If Rocko didn't exist, SpongeBob would've never came to be. And people like Stephen Hillenberg, Derek Drymon, Doug Lawrence and Robert Scull would've never worked in animation since this show was their first job for animation. Back to the Simpsons, both Dan and Swampy left The Simpsons by 1997. Dan stayed in Hollywood, but Swampy moved to London for a few years working on British programs such as Bounty Hamster and Postman Pat. Dan would later become a storyboard artist on Hey Arnold! and SpongeBob SquarePants for a few years (for SpongeBob's case, only the second season). Then, Dan started working on a little show called Family Guy, where he was one of the directors of the show. Coincidentally when Family Guy was originally cancelled, Dan briefly returned to The Simpsons during the thirteenth season as storyboard artist before leaving again after the episode " Bart vs. Lisa vs. the Third Grade". He did returned to Family Guy when the show came back in 2005, but he left after 2007 since he co-created a Disney show with Swampy called Phineas and Ferb. Phineas and Ferb was acclaimed for its humor, its stories and its songs. That show technically saved the Disney Channel from being a channel only demoted to sitcoms and their cartoons were getting cancelled. Another example is storyboard artists becoming directors. Steven Dean Moore, Jeffrey Lynch, Dominic Polcino, Ralph Sosa, Susie Dietter, Jim Reardon and Rich Moore were storyboard artists on The Simpsons before becoming full-time directors on the show later through its run. For Futurama's case, this is the first show that storyboard artists like Shawn Murray (specifically the episode " When Aliens Attack"), Aaron Rozenfeld, Tom King, Rodney Clouden, Dave Cunningham and newcomers like Chris Sonnenberg, Miguel Puga and Stuart Livingston worked on. After the original run was cancelled, Shawn moved to Nickelodeon to work on Invader Zim and The Fairly OddParents and also worked on Family Guy and American Dad!, Aaron and Tom both moved to The Fairly OddParents after being laid offed (the entire original crew was laid offed after it was cancelled, so that's why not too many original animation crew members were involved in the revival, also because of budget), Rodney is currently a producer for the upcoming Marvel series Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, and Dave Cunningham would later work on SpongeBob. After the revival was cancelled (although its coming back on Hulu next year), Chris would later show-run Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, Miguel would later become a storyboard artist on The Fairly OddParents and The Loud House and would later show-run its spin-off The Casagrandes, and Stuart also moved to The Loud House but he was also a director and storyboard artist on The Owl House, the same show created by a former Gravity Falls crew member. One more thing to point out is that someone was adding overseas studios. The only show I can think of anyways is both Avatar and Korra. I know its a bit understandable given that Avatar has three different studios throughout its run (such as JM, DR Movie and MOI). For Korra's case although majority of the series is animated by Studio Mir, some season 2 episodes were outsourced by Pierrot (the same studio who did Naruto) and people HATED their animation for being too inconsistent and Mir being the superior studio than Pierrot. Coincidentally, they were fired after season 2. But I already mentioned, someone added the animation studios and the storyboard artists next to each other meaning its over clogging the page. Thankfully, I did the overseas studios for Book 1 but I have yet to do Books 2 and 3. If you want to know which animation did what episode of Avatar or Korra, go to the main page since did mention how many episodes the studios did. Good thing no other cartoons suffered for it (specifically shows that are animated by more than one overseas studio like The Simpsons and King of the Hill). So you see, some storyboard artists would be important to the animation industry, as they later created some of the more acclaimed modern cartoons and if they didn't work on any these shows, most of the newer stuff would've never happened. Can you please restore all of my storyboard edits for most of the shows I mentioned (the shows being The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad!, Futurama, Bob's Burgers (although I only did the first season so far), The Great North and Disenchantment)? I worked so hard on adding those pages, but you are taking it all away! Not to mention some of these artists were later important to the industry. The animation industry is trying to get a new deal animation since they are not being paid enough unlike live action shows. This INCLUDES storyboard artists. Storyboard artists are important to the industry and not just the writers and directors. I mean the same applies to stuff such as editors, cinematographers, effects artists, background artists, character designers, prop designers, etc. I'm not trying to rant that storyboard artists on Wikipedia is bad and I should ignore it, but I'm just proving you guys that storyboard artists (no matter if its credited in the opening or closing credits) are important! Please stop reverting my storyboard edits for most primetime shows in general! I took my time to search for them either from Wikipedia or online and it took a while to do it. Now since you reverted all of my edits, its looks a bit jumbled up. Specifically if the episode has two or three writers or directors, it's going to push words down a bit for example ("Directed by Steven Speilberg & Alan Smithee-Not Real). Can you please first of all restore my storyboard edits for the shows I mentioned? I apologized to all the users who suffered me for putting the edits without explanation. Thank you, have a nice day and SUPPORT STORYBOARD ARTISTS! :) 69.255.225.138 ( talk) 19:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
That is not what a consensus is. A consensus means a clear agreement between a multitude of editors, not just an explanation. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
write a consensus. You present something you wish to be different or changed, editors discuss, and through that consensus is built. For example, in this discussion, consensus is in support of removing storyboard credits in many, if not all, instances for animated series. You shouting things loudly and beating a dead horse doesn't change nor sway the current consensus, seeing as you have not backed up your rationale with policy, guidelines, or past discussions that created a different consensus. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I made another section since it didn't have space, I didn't post my comment but my question is, how could a do a consensus-building for the article "List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1-20)"? 69.255.225.138 ( talk) 01:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. You are clearing not abiding the general consensus which is to not include storyboard artists on episode tables which have already stated by multiple editors. You are dead set to add the storyboard credits regardless of the general consensus. Not accepting a general consensus is not how Wikipedia works here. "My way or the highway" is not how it works on Wikipedia either. As said by multiple editors, if you want to add them, go to Wikias or other external wikis. — YoungForever (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
begging repeatedly is not going to change other editors' minds. That is exactly what you are doing. — YoungForever (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
you failed to change other editors' minds, you need to drop it and move on.You can't make nor force people to change their minds. That's not how Wikipedia works nor how the real world works. I have already answered them, as I said before, go see Favre1fan93's comment above where he talked about consensus. — YoungForever (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I know this convo is probs dead, but I wanted to chime in here: Some shows, like Adventure Time, are storyboard-driven; in that case, the board artists are the 'main' writers, and thus they are listed as the writers on episode/season articles. Other shows, like The Simpsons are script-driven; with these, it is the script writers who are the 'main' writers. As Nohomersryan noted, "For scripted cartoons ... the storyboard artist is largely not that important," and while I might quibble with the use of "not that important", I would agree that it's overkill to include them in episode/season lists. I don't, however, think including them in episode artists is that bad of an idea, unless there is, like, 50 board artists for an episode. Ultimately with those pages, I feel it's best left as a case-by-case discussion topic.-- Gen. Quon [Talk] (I'm studying Wikipedia!) 16:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
MTV Splitsvilla (season 13) needs some assistance. While the recent IP edits are probably vandalism, reference #2's title contradicts the URLs content. I am confused, any help would be appreciated. Commander Keane ( talk) 02:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series) § Ep 1 writer credits. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. —
YoungForever
(talk)
14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I have taken the DVD cover and the season-specific logo to the FFD discussion. Your input there are welcome George Ho ( talk) 00:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
So, NFL Slimetime premiered its second season a few weeks back. However, due to the article's importance being rated "Low", no one has been able to update it (increasing the episode count and adding the weekly NVP). I've been doing this for nearly a month, and I am tired of being the only contributor. Feel free to reply with any thoughts about this. BrickMaster02 ( talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:His Dark Materials (TV series). I'm not quite sure, but it looks like there's an editor there who is of the opinion that premiere dates for future seasons, that are reliably sourced, cannot be included in the lead per
WP:CRYSTAL. I've responded saying that CRYSTAL would still support these additions, which are common practice for WikiProject Television articles. --
Alex_21
TALK
02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
A few days ago I removed all anime from the various Years in American television articles, for reasons discussed on my talk page. Probably should have made this announcement sooner, but better late than never, I suppose. 100.7.44.80 ( talk) 21:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Buidhe has nominated CSI effect for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
What is the stance of using this site as a source for cartoon information? I don't know where else it's used, but I know it's used widely throughout the SpongeBob SquarePants articles, I believe primarily as a source for episodes' production codes.
As stated on the article here for the website, there have been system issues leading to the site going defunct in 2019, and not having any information beyond then. I'm not exactly sure if WP:USERG applies, as they have a whole list of many sources titled as 'Those who have helped'. My only thinking there is that it may be considered user-generated as the first thing listed is 'Various BCDB Users'. The article here on Wikipedia also states that, "Users are no longer able to contribute to the site due to the issue."
So I'm not quite sure what the stance here is regarding BCDB being used as a source. Should this still be getting used as a source? And if not, should the information being sourced by it be removed or have the citation replaced with 'citation needed'?... Magitroopa ( talk) 16:35, 18 October 2022 (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 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 |
This has been an issue brewing on the Survivor pages over the last few weeks but readily applies across most of the competitive reality show pages.
@ Lee Vilenski: since around December 2021 had been looking to make Survivor: Borneo a GA and as part of that, saw the tables needed to be revised to comply with MOS and WP:ACCESS in regards to color use. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#GA push. It was clear this was a needed change, as most of these tables heavily used the tribe colors heavily and too often to impart information (which should never be done). Lee along with others has since been proceeding to propagate similar changes these changes to other seasons of Survivors. At first these changes were reverted by IPs, but in the past few weeks we have several registered editors complaining these make the tables unusable and other factors, that the colors were fine, and other arguments.
Really, this goes towards the general issue that was discussed previously here about the standardization of progression for competitive reality shows where it was pointed out that most shows in trying to adopt the colors of the show itself were violating the MOS and ACCESS aspects. (using color for info, using non-HTML5 colors, not picking colors that are colorblind friendly, etc.) But I would even add more that with something like Survivor, there is a level of detail that may be almost to the point of trivality for WP. Yes, constestant lists and elimination orders make sense, but considering how the show is summarized in RSes, voting tables are almost inappropriate. This is an additional issue atop the color and format problems.
Basically, I think we need to readdress not only the color and standardization of these tables (on a per-series basis) but making sure that we're not running effectively fan wikis for these shows. -- Masem ( t) 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated The Wire 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. Z1720 ( talk) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this though it might be as good as any other possible pages to talk about.
Recently, there has been IP addresses which keep on changing some info of the Simpsons related articles such as the production code and directors which I usually revert when I see these changes. Hopefully now more of you would be aware of that disruption as time goes by, especially as one IP address range is currently blocked. Iggy ( Swan) ( Contribs) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
The
documentation for Infobox television doesn't say a lot about how the |distributor=
parameter should be used, just "the names of the original distribution company or companies". Does that mean at the time the show was produced, or does it mean the first time it was distributed to someone other than the original broadcaster? Does "distribution" mean sales to broadcasters or to the general public via video cassette or DVD? I see lots of articles that appear to list the current distributor, or in the case of shows 50 years old it could be a distributor from 20 years ago, or a present-day company that bought out the distributor of 20 years ago. Could we have some clearer guidance in the infobox documentation?
Dr Greg
talk
18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Another IP vandal is hitting the distributor parameters of articles just today. We need to get rid of this parameter once and for all. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Rough Crossing (TV series) seems like it may be a hoax. All of the actors, the production company, and everything else associated is a redlink. The only hits I can find are directory listings like IMDb and Wikipedia mirrors. For a show that aired from 1997-2005, you'd think there'd be some trace of it online, a plot synopsis, or info about the actors, but I haven't found a thing to prove that this even existed. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I would request everyone here, who specifically work for this wikiproject, to comment at Talk:Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah#Proposed decisions. Regards, Itcouldbepossible Talk 05:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I created a draft for Stranger Things (season 5), the final season of the series. Any help in keeping it updated would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Last year or longer I made a proposal to replace the color boxes for Template:Series Overview by creating a vertical colored thick border between the season/series number and the total episode count. The consensus was against it because it was hard to distinguish. Since then, I tried to create a new rationale on how to standardize color usage in templates, thinking there could be a better way to show color and still be presented well and not like some amateur. the more I tried to create this potential rationale, the more I realized how unnecessary it is for the series overview template. I even go as far as to say that they end up being a distraction when trying to navigate between seasons. And the shorter series are too short that require them. There's no perfect middle ground length of a series where the color boxes are necessary and improve readability/navigation. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 23:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@ IJBall: It's ok if you don't understand why it's unprofessional. It objectively is an unprofessional design for a template to try to distinguish seasons by an arbitrary color in an isolated undefined column. it's not important to me at this moment to be validated by my peers on that. A fact is simply a fact.
But to clarify, I wouldn't be bringing this up if it was optimization for optimization's sake. It is a "problem" that needs to be "solved". The "problem" is that color indicators in the series overview template is a visual distraction, not a visual aid. I'm not saying it's a fun addition that causes no harm. The extra column makes it harder to read the information presented. Because your eyes draw toward the color over written text, it can at times be hard to read the information presented. Anything with +10 Seasons isn't helping. But other times it doesn't provide a real benefit, just an imaginary one. I did have an idea for making alternating background colors for rows similar to template:track listing with the addition of allowing to choose the color of the head and the alternating color range of the seasons. Something proved to help as a visual aid and is beneficial for both smaller series and large series. And MOS:TABLE makes no mention of gradients. So I thought the table can look something like this:
NO LONGER AVAILABLE
It's completely bare-bones. So don't feel limited to the color choices you see there. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 06:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
VS.
Season | Episodes | Aired |
---|---|---|
1
|
12 | October 2013 |
2
|
12 | November 2015 |
3
|
12 | December 2018 |
4
|
6 | January 2020 |
6 | February 2022 | |
5
|
12 | June 2022 |
6
|
12 | March 2023 |
10
|
12 | December 2023 |
100
|
12 | December 2049 |
OR
Season | Episodes | Aired | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 12 | October 2013 | |
2 | 12 | November 2015 | |
3 | 12 | December 2018 | |
4 | 6 | January 2020 | |
6 | February 2022 | ||
5 | 12 | June 2022 | |
6 | 12 | March 2023 | |
10 | 12 | December 2023 | |
100 | 12 | December 2049 |
plainrowheaders
so that they aren't bolded... But, frankly, that may be a problem with the suggested changes: the 'scope=row' header is supposed to go into the first cell in the row – with the suggestions, that would be the cells with the colors. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
sometimes you have to sacrifice optimum readability for what the client may wantmay be true for database design, but this is not a database, it is a visual chart intended to convey information quickly and help with navigation. Using alternating colours like the original suggestion above is helpful for large data tables when you are trying to follow which information is on which line, etc., but in a (usually) shorter overview table where each row corresponds to a different section you are just being misleading by making it look like there are two or three groupings going on instead of a list of distinct items. With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/article, and if the different colours are too similar then they can be changed to something with better contrast. However, it is important to note that the colours we use in this table are not actually arbitrary and mostly come directly from the promotional material for each season. The different colours are intended by the producers to be associated with different seasons, so you actually aren't far off with the
"Season blue" or "season red"comment. As for the two compromise suggestions, I feel like they are both just slightly worse versions of the current style, with the only difference being that the colours are smaller and harder to see (which goes against the whole accessibility thing). - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/articleThis is in theory. It makes sense that someone who has edited the article repeatedly may find it useful, but I'm having a difficult time defending it for first-time readers who are unfamiliar with the series and its structure. Even more so for first-time readers who see the series overview table for the first time. Especially because it is an awkward design just to reflect color is associated with the season #. And sometimes reprints of the season will change the promotional art and its dominant color too, so it's still highly subjective.
because they're no longer defined columns, your eyes wont focus on them as much as before- I think this is where are confusion is coming from, you think the main difference between the current design and Option B is that the colour is not in a "defined column" anymore. That may be technically true, but for anyone looking at the table who doesn't know that, it will be no different since in both styles it looks like a column of colours. I'm just pointing out that from a visual standpoint, with no knowledge of the technical side (i.e. the people that we are wanting to understand this), the only difference that can be seen between the two is that the column of colours in Option B is narrower. - adamstom97 ( talk) 05:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::#box {
::::::: width: 50px;
::::::: height: 50px;
::::::: background: linear-gradient(to bottom, red 50%, blue 50%);
:::::::}
@ Alex 21: i think it's a fair compromise. The vertical border is still there but for the most part it still advocates less eye-drifting because the column is smaller and not draws too much attention from the rest of the information. I would request bolding the numbers to further assist in navigation. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 19:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
So, is there agreement and a consensus to implement the changes to the colouring of the series overview, to convert from a separate HTML column to CSS formatting of the season number column? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyone able to add a title card or promotional artwork to the infobox at Generation Drag? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Anyone able to add a title card or promotional artwork to the infoboxes at Trixie Motel and The Book of Queer? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, can anyone tell me what's the difference between these categories:
It seems that Christian TV channels are categorised in one of these 4 categories; I am not sure if we should have so many, and how to decide which of these categories a given channel should be in? It seems to me that we just need "Christian television stations" and all the channels should be in that category. Kidburla ( talk) 11:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Can anyone find a source confirming the air dates of Eureka! (TV series)? The only reference with a date in the article is IMDb and it has a different year. Gonnym ( talk) 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the infobox image at Legendary (season 3) should be removed from Wikimedia Commons and uploaded locally under fair use.
Anyone able to help with this? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock 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. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 04:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't even know where to start with this- the article has had multiple issues since 2020/2021, including WP:COPYVIO issues. Beyond that, citations 165-210 are not showing up properly whatsoever unless in preview mode while editing (only when editing one section alone), and I have no idea where the problem is stemming from and how/what to fix at all. Any help would be greatly appreciated- but the article needs a massive amount of cleanup done... Magitroopa ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
An editor has requested for The Cheap Seats (Australian TV series) to be moved to The Cheap Seats. Since you had some involvement with The Cheap Seats (Australian TV series), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Happily888 ( talk) 01:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I know it's common for articles to use Template:television episode ratings to display DVR numbers, but I've noticed lately most tables are completely void of this information, making them completely pointless and mostly a waste of space as they just duplicate information found in the episode table. I know sources for expanded DVR numbers have been very limited or non-existent recently, so I'm not sure if that's the reason or they aren't enough interested editors in adding it. I did a sample of a few show from each major cable and broadcast television network to get a better grasp on it. The following are some articles with the number being how many episodes from each season have DVR numbers for them.
Cable
Network
It's clear there's more information for broadcast network shows vs. cable, so I can see the value in keeping them for regular network shows, but cable series it's seems to be unnecessary as the tables are mostly just empty displaying repetitive information found elsewhere in the article. And I don't think it's serves much purpose to create entire ratings tables just so we can display the 18-49 number is "0.1", which for 99% of readers won't even know what that means. I'm thinking there should be a threshold and if a certain number of episodes don't have DVR numbers, then the table should be deleted. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
For those familiar with the AfD process, I've submitted AfD requests for many of the articles of the winners of the seasons of MasterChef Australia. I know the consensus in the past has been that, generally speaking, being a winner of a reality show doesn't really qualify as being WP:N or WP:BIO. Some biased editors are trying to sway the consensus towards keep. I'd appreciate any other input. - SanAnMan ( talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The block-evading user 103.54.41.0/24 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Dhaka added incorrect inofrmation to infoboxes of TV channel articles ( example 1, example 2). These edits should be reverted presumptively unless they are supported by the article text. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galaxy High#Requested move 30 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KQRY-LD#Requested move 31 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed splitting up the {{
RWRR}}
template that is used on The Real World/Road Rules/The Challenge and other related pages. You can find the discussion on the
talk page for the template. Posting here to try and get more eyes and opinions on discussion. General "should we split or should we not", along with two option if we do split. Thank you.
WikiVirus
C
(talk)
18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at Template talk:Unreported UK viewers about the future use of the template due to the changes that BARB have made to their website. Any comments that could be made about the template, as well as the introduction of a new template, would be very welcome. – DarkGlow • 13:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested page split at I Can See Your Voice, with the intention of splitting out the international franchise section that was merged into this article in 2020. Any opinions of WikiProject members are appreciated. Felix QW ( talk) 17:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I started a discussion on The Lake talk page suggesting to add drama to genres as it has elements of that. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on using template to ref awards at Template talk:Awards ref please Indagate ( talk) 17:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Requesting input at this discussion from other experienced television editors. A user has added ratings data for this series, which is a streaming show on Paramount+, based on some broadcast reruns of one (out of five) season from years after the episodes were first released. Though I don't think there have been explicit guidelines against including ratings for reruns (until I recently added some wording to MOS:TVRECEPTION with some support from a couple editors there), it is definitely my experience that we don't do this. It is especially significant that we avoid misleading data for an article like this which has a long history of editors and IPs trying to add negative opinions to the article that don't align with the sources and wider coverage. I have told the editor that they need to prove why this is more noteworthy than any other ratings data for reruns by providing sources for context and commentary, but they have ignored me and continue to add the information. Any help in handling this situation would be most appreciated. - adamstom97 ( talk) 03:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
What are the rules regarding TV episode titles?
I'm wondering because I've noticed that The Ghost Squad has the same episode titles listed in the episode guides on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Tubi TV, Channel 5 etc and it's original network Channel 4.
Yet on-screen it doesn't show those titles anywhere...
...However they do have different English counties and regions as the on-screen titles.
I'm not sure what to do with the titles on IMDB as they only let you add 1 episode title, and no alternative episode titles...
...However on here, we could keep the episode guide titles, with the on-screen titles on the right next to them.
Eg.
|AltTitle=
parameter...)An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 23:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Just Sam with List of American Idol finalists. If you are interestexd, you may join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Who made this unneccessary thing?
I want to edit some shows about current Distributors but this rule come to my way and blocking me. C'mon people? How can this works? We must be demolish it.
"Only add the original distributor of the show if the show has one, as Infobox television says "The names of the original distribution company or companies." If the show doesn't have a distributor, leave it blank." Extormophie Exolus ( talk) 23:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello Samie. Most of the Time Distributor means currently right holders and needs to be change because of owner or platform changes so we need to edit this parameter with just one sentence. It's not be that much bad. I suggest current distributor and former distributor eras for old tv shows. It's makes jobs easier Extormophie Exolus ( talk) 01:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Is it necessary/appropriate to label shows as "streaming" in the lead sentence? I strongly feel that is neither necessary or appropriate. We don't label things as "network" or "cable" in the lead. We always list what streaming service it is on in the lead, so the information is there, but putting it in the lead puts way too much emphasis on the fact that it's streaming, and is as if we're treating streaming as being different than just television. What even is a streaming series is not even clear. Is One Day at a Time (2017 TV series), which first 3 seasons were on Netflix before moving to the channel Pop for its final season a streaming show? What about BoJack Horseman which first streamed on Netflix before Comedy Central started to show reruns. What about shows that are first available on a streaming service in one country but airs on cable in another country? It makes no sense to me to list it as such. However, @ User:BrickMaster02 apparently disagrees, though I'm not sure why. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 23:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Interesting to see the previous discussion on the matter. There seemed to pretty clearly be a consensus there that "streaming television show" should be avoided while saying something like "that was released via streaming on Netflix" in the lead sentence is perfectly fine, which I completely agree with. My problem with listing streaming television in the lead is that it suggests that there is inherit and fundamental difference between broadcast and streaming television. However doing it the other way (first suggested by IJBall) doesn't create that distinction and is just noting how it was distributed. I'm going to ping the participants in the previous discussion to see if they would like to weigh in on it again. @ User:Masem, @ User:Facu-el Millo, @ User:Spanneraol, @ User:Joeyconnick. I'm also considering making this an RFC, just so that whatever decision we come to carries more weight and an official consensus will be established. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 16:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Would like to ask if sourcing is required (yes I'm fully aware of WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, but please read on) for the production staffs in Template:Infobox television such as developer, music, executive_producer, producer, and possibly other fields. I'm asking this in the context of Korean drama, in which the broadcasting networks doesn't published the information for music, executive_producer, and producer in the drama's official website, the official website would only published the information of director, writer, and production companies, rarely the information of developer, music, executive_producer, and producer.
However, these information can be found in the drama's end credits of each episodes, however one of the issues is that not all Korean dramas are distributed on notable streaming platform/service such as Netflix and Disney+. And obviously, we can't use piracy websites as a means of sourcing. Hence
— Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 12:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
|distributor=
parameter, I'm pretty sure there would be greater resistance to removing developer, music, and esp. executive_producer, producer, etc. parameters from the IB. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
14:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Is The Debbie Drake Show notable? She seems to being a notable icon on 1960's American television are these sources good enough [ TV: One, Two - TIME] [ This 1960s exercise book illustrates everything wrong with our pursuit of fitness - Vox][ Jumping Through Hoops: The History of Women Hitting (and Hating) the Gym (vice.com)] [ Debbie Drake: America's First Female TV Fitness Guru - LIFE] [ DEBBIE DRAKE HAS SURGERY - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)] [ Working Out from Home for Women, From Jack Lalanne to Yoga Youtube (jezebel.com)] Dwanyewest ( talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested to know that this month Women in Red is focusing on Comedians, many of whom are associated with TV. Please feel free to join in.-- Ipigott ( talk) 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This may be a fairly niche topic, but it's something I see every year with the Emmys. The official Emmy nominations list does not mention individual episode submissions for lead and supporting acting categories, unlike most other categories ( link). However, the nominees still submit one episode each for consideration, and those submissions are "leaked" and added to various articles as part of the official nomination. So, should the episode submissions be mentioned or omitted? I personally think they should be kept out (except in external links at the main ceremony articles) since they're never officially named with the nominees. Also, the overall series nominees submit specific episodes but we never mention those, so I think it is reasonable to discourage acting submissions as well. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 04:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
The first has content, but is at the wrong name. The second is the correct title, but is currently a redirect to the first. I'm not sure if a move is the right way to fix this, or if there has been cut/pasting involved also. Can someone look further into this? MB 14:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I had a brief discussion with DonIago over at Talk:Family Guy about how every episode of shows such as The Simpsons, South Park, and Futurama have individual articles, while Family Guy does not. Long story short, I'd like to ask about which episode articles from these four shows (and maybe more, if I'm missing any that could be important for the purpose of this discussion) should remain, and which ones should be redirected/deleted. I could be bold and do it all myself, but as someone with only a surface-level knowledge of these shows, I wouldn't at all know where to start. 100.7.36.213 ( talk) 21:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello all- would appreciate some help/clarification regarding 'last-aired' within Template:Infobox television. Essentially, Total DramaRama has recently aired its season three finale (" 3rd season finale"). However, fans appear to believe that this third season finale is the series finale, with most either changing the end date unsourced on Wikipedia, or attempting to use this as a source (some random fan/unverified account getting a direct message from a supposed crew member of the show- very much WP:NOTRS).
Two things:
1. How exactly should this be handled within the infobox with 'last-aired'? I've discussed a bit with administrator Drmies, which can be seen at User talk:Drmies#Total DramaRama. Would appreciate some clarification regarding how/when the end date should be inserted, as the 3rd season finale has aired, but there is no source(s) indicating the show has been cancelled, as well as no source(s) indicating the show has been renewed whatsoever. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all along, but I was of the impression it would remain as 'present' until July 23, 2023, if no sources have emerged (and no renewals/no new episodes have aired) by that time.
2. Simple enough- if possible (maybe I've been looking in the wrong places??), would be greatly appreciated to have help getting source(s) regarding the series has ended. Not sure if there are any out there or not, but any source confirming cancellation/end of the series will easily/quickly end this altogether
Much thanks. Magitroopa ( talk) 02:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired.I know Drmies argued for updating the date because the documentation notes
This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date, but the "12 months" sentence makes it clear to me that we shouldn't make the implication until time elapses. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 21:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The article ESPNU Coaches Spotlight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable, simple as that.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
100.7.36.213 (
talk)
18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article ESPNU Inside the Polls has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable, simple as that.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
100.7.36.213 (
talk)
18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article ESPNU Recruiting Insider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable, simple as that.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
100.7.36.213 (
talk)
18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I just discovered this ignored gem that needs a lot of love thanks to my work at GAN. It is quite incomplete and needs more entries. It seems to also be a bit UK-heavy in places (read the definition for "zoom"!!). I'm cross-posting to a few projects to encourage editors to add germane entries. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Episode 39 (Kuruluş: Osman)#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky ( talk) 05:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Question: Should films released from ad-supported streamers (so called "AVOD's") such as Tubi and Freevee be considered to be "television films" in the same way films from cable channels like Lifetime and Hallmark are? Or should they be considered to be "streaming films" in the same way films released on ad-free services like Netflix are?... Any thoughts on this question? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Does this WikiProject have a page that discusses the reliability of sources -- something like this, from the video games WP? Even a short list would be helpful to those of us not familiar with all the websites that get cited. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Can someone look at the Nickelodeon edits/reverts that are going on? Related to this first revert, and the most recent revert. And this talk page discussion.
Initially user @ Magical Golden Whip: reverted the content saying it was not appropriate to add while a discussion was going on on the talk page of another article (Dan Schneider article). User @ Jpcase: added the content back in, saying that discussions on a seperate article were not reason to revert edits on the Nickelodeon article. Anyway, that is why the discussion on the Nickelodeon talk page references a copy paste from another article's talk page discussion.
If anyone wants to take a look we could use another set of eyes. Thanks. Anybar ( talk) 05:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I have proposed merging Saved by the Bell: Wedding in Las Vegas into the article for Saved by the Bell: The College Years. See merger proposal here. At present, we are two for, one against. That's a majority, but is it enough of a consensus to proceed w/ the merger after the week has elapsed? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
On Sept. 2, Zvig47 moved the article Entergalatic from Entergalactic (TV series) to the non-standard Entergalactic (TV special), due to a change in formatting for the Netflix show. As "(TV special)" is non-standard disambiguation under WP:NCTV, it would seem like the best course of action would be to move this to Entergalactic (film), as this is now planned to be just a one-off "special" release, akin to a "TV film". Any objections to this? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Tv special is the best way to describe this. For instance, Werewolf by Night (TV special) has the same disambiguation. It does not meet the standards for a film or tv film. It’s going to be the length of a tv episode and there will only be one. It has been described by Netflix themselves as a special. Zvig47 ( talk) 22:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation should be based on reliable sources. If the content is sourced as a special, then it's a special. NCTV is not a policy, merely a guideline; there are standards, but zero concrete rules. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
"TV special" is a meaningless term in regards to Netflix and Disney+ shows.That's not true in any sense. The disambiguation is in regards to the content, not how or where it's presented. Thus, something on a streaming service that is in the vein of your CBS Holiday TV special can be called a "TV special". - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 23:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Just because a guideline doesn't mention (TV special)
and (TV pilot)
doesn't mean they're prohibited. Does it say Any other disambiguation is correct and should not be used.
? If not, this doesn't violate any guidelines.
InfiniteNexus (
talk)
05:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
there is opposition to that in NCTVWhere is this in past discussions?
we shouldn't create new disambiguators for frankly rare-to-very rare casesDab'ed articles in the subcategories Category:Television specials would disagree, as I've seen a number just on a cursory look that already use "TV special" or others that probably could.
no one is interested in coming up with an efficient, rational naming system for WP:TVit appears from this discussion that editors are feeling "TV special" should be a valid option given it's a pretty common term in the industry. And if we need something more formal like an RfC, then we should do that. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
is a marketing term. Maybe for real-world/news coverage instances, sure. But in fictional instances such as the classic holiday programming, I wouldn't call that marketing. Or also something like the live musical performances NBC and Fox have done. I'd call those "TV specials" too. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 15:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
opposition to [this] in NCTV? -- Alex_21 TALK 12:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
In other news... Moonlight (American TV series) is a WP:GA (since 2008) – it was out-of-date in terms of current MOS:TV section ordering, and I just fixed that. But that's not the point of this post... The series ran for just one season of 16-episodes in 2007–08. Despite this, List of Moonlight episodes is another one of these WP:FLs (also since 2008) for a one-season TV series. Obviously, the episodes summary table should be merged back to the main article, as per MOS:TVSPLIT, WP:FL or not.
I don't intend to do anything about this at this time. Just making others aware (in case somebody wants to take a stab at a merge). I'm guessing the first step would be opening an "official" WP:MERGE discussion. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I've listed the main article for the Degrassi franchise for PR. I want to see how it can be improved for potential FA nomination. See it here. ToQ100gou ( talk) 04:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
There's a discussion about the type of content that should go into this episode list article that, while diplomatic so far, doesn't seem likely to reach any consensus without additional parties involved. Would anyone care to share an opinion there? Thanks! -- Fyrael ( talk) 06:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
For the past week or so I've been working on creating a task force specifically for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul related articles and i just now realized I should probably ask here if its a good idea? Personally I think the sheer popularity of both shows is enough to make them deserving of their own task forces but beyond that both shows have an article for every episode, a lot of which could definitly do with some cleaning up/expanding. I think a dedicated task force could help this. Thoughts? Here is what ive done so far: Task Force WIP FishandChipper 🐟 🍟 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
It was a long-ago created list, but I just wanted to remind WP:TV about User:Alex 21/sandbox/No episode table, which is a list of all articles that use {{ Episode list}} but not {{ Episode table}}; i.e. articles that are still using hardcoded episode table headers. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I have a question are these sources good enough to either create a Debbie Drake article or The Debbie Drake Show, TV: One, Two - TIME , Fitness guru Jack LaLanne's exercise legacy | CBC News, In the 60s, Men and Women Both Tuned in to Debbie Drake | OrangeBean Indiana, DEBBIE DRAKE HAS SURGERY - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com), Debbie Drake: America's First Female TV Fitness Guru - LIFE, Guest Post: THE PELOTON WIFE AND DEBBIE DRAKE - Physical Culture Study, LIFE - Google Books, Corpsman - Google Books , Working Out from Home for Women, From Jack Lalanne to Yoga Youtube (jezebel.com) Dwanyewest ( talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Am I wrong for understanding sourcing in a lead as being unecessary or redundant when all the information stated therein is already fully and reliably sourced in the body of any given article? Especially if the lead is just one pgraph of a few lines. Are there specific stipulations in the TV MOS, aside from for material that could be contested or be considered controversial, that I might have missed somehow, that state refs should still be included or linked? I was just reverted on a Netflix series article and told that I shouldn't edit based on personal preference, but that wasn't why I removed the ref links at all. -- Carlobunnie ( talk) 02:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
In the specific article mentioned for this discussion, the references aren't harmful, especially since the lead is so small. However, since they are supported in the body of the article, I'd lean toward not featuring them, but again, for this specific instance, it's fine, though none of the material seems contentious enough or questioned to need the extra ref tags. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 22:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:THQ § Formatting troubles.
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
|NumParts=
parameter for accessability. --
Alex_21
TALK
02:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Anyone able to add title card or promotional artwork to the infobox? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, folks...
I asked about a year and a half ago if storyboard artists should be included in the Simpsons episode list parameters. The discussion leaned toward no so I got rid of them. In the past little while, they've popped up again on a fairly large number of lists (they're all over List of Futurama episodes, List of The Critic episodes, List of Family Guy episodes, etc.)
While I find these highly pointless and oppose including them (imo: for scripted cartoons like these, the storyboard artist is largely not that important, and they're all buried in the end credits so giving them list placement is WP:UNDUE), I don't feel like removing them from 40+ articles based on a sorta-consensus for one specific instance; someone would be bound to get mad at me. So I'll ask again I suppose. Anyone out there in favor of these? Nohomersryan ( talk) 05:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello I'm 69.255.225.138, the guy who edited most primetime shows with the storyboard artists. Sorry I keep doing this with most primetime shows, I know you guys already mention that storyboards are only allowed if they are credited in the title cards or opening sequence. But here is the thing. Why did you remove my storyboard edits for multiple shows (such as The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, etc.)? I worked very hard to improve those pages but now since you removed them, the writers and directors (specifically co-directors or co-writers) are a bit of a jumbled mess. I already read the discussions that storyboard artists are only allowed for children's shows (Nick, CN, Disney) but why you are removing the storyboards from almost all adult/primetime shows? If I try to find storyboards for a specific cartoon, they are all mainly children's shows. I know that for primetime shows, they were credited in the credits and only the writer and director were credited in the opening titles, but why you are taking away my hard work on adding the storyboard artists. I promise I will not add composers, overseas studios, supervising directors, etc. because it can overclog the page and it will become unreadable. Not to mention, I will also not add storyboard artists to live action programs, as storyboards are not a thing for live action shows, most live action shows are scripted, then filmed. Most people can only find the storyboard artists on IMDB but the problem with that is that it is always vandalized. Take a look on the SpongeBob episodes "Squirrel Jelly/The String" ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8260950/fullcredits/) and "Plankton's Intern/Patrick's Tantrum" (( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10084374/fullcredits/). Even if the writers and voice actors were correct, the animation department section was totally vandalized. They claim that the crew from The Simpsons Movie and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie have involvement in these episodes but that's is not true! How Rich Moore, Gregg Vanzo, Steven Dean Moore and Lauren MacMullan are involved in these episodes?! They didn't even work on SpongeBob, they worked on The Simpsons (although all the directors I mentioned aside from Steven Dean Moore have already left the show)! But you see, IMDB is not always a reliable source. Another reason why you should add the storyboard artists back for some shows is because some of the storyboard artist would be important later on in the animation industry. For example take Pendleton Ward, J.G. Quintel and Alex Hirsch. Their very first work is that they worked as storyboard artists and writers on The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack. After the show ended, Pendleton created Adventure Time, J.G. created Regular Show and Alex created Gravity Falls, all three shows are critically acclaimed and would later go out as some of the best cartoons of all time. Speaking of Gravity Falls, this is the show that future creators like Matt Braly, Dana Terrace and Shion Takeuchi have worked on. Matt and Dana are storyboard artists and Shion was a writer. After Gravity Falls ended, Matt would later create Amphibia, Dana would later create The Owl House, and Shion would later create Inside Job. There are more examples of this for children's shows such as Adventure Time, where Rebecca Sugar, Skyler Page and Elizabeth Ito first worked on that show before creating Steven Universe, Clarence and City of Ghosts respectively later in their careers. But now let's move on to the elephant in the room: primetime shows. Case in point, it is important to add the writer and director for an episode of a primetime series as they have different writers and directors per episode. But the same applies the storyboard artists, since because it takes over a year to make an episode a show, the writers, storyboard artists and directors change per episode due working on different episodes in the same time. Here are some examples of storyboard artists on primetime shows who would later be important to the animation industry. Dan Povenmire's first animation work was The Simpsons, which he was a character layout artist and storyboard artist for some episodes. But that is the same show that he worked on where he met Jeff "Swampy" Marsh. They became best friends and worked together on Rocko's Modern Life which they worked at the same time as The Simpsons. Speaking of Rocko, this is where SpongeBob creator Stephen Hillenberg got his first animation job as a director, storyboard artist and writer. If Rocko didn't exist, SpongeBob would've never came to be. And people like Stephen Hillenberg, Derek Drymon, Doug Lawrence and Robert Scull would've never worked in animation since this show was their first job for animation. Back to the Simpsons, both Dan and Swampy left The Simpsons by 1997. Dan stayed in Hollywood, but Swampy moved to London for a few years working on British programs such as Bounty Hamster and Postman Pat. Dan would later become a storyboard artist on Hey Arnold! and SpongeBob SquarePants for a few years (for SpongeBob's case, only the second season). Then, Dan started working on a little show called Family Guy, where he was one of the directors of the show. Coincidentally when Family Guy was originally cancelled, Dan briefly returned to The Simpsons during the thirteenth season as storyboard artist before leaving again after the episode " Bart vs. Lisa vs. the Third Grade". He did returned to Family Guy when the show came back in 2005, but he left after 2007 since he co-created a Disney show with Swampy called Phineas and Ferb. Phineas and Ferb was acclaimed for its humor, its stories and its songs. That show technically saved the Disney Channel from being a channel only demoted to sitcoms and their cartoons were getting cancelled. Another example is storyboard artists becoming directors. Steven Dean Moore, Jeffrey Lynch, Dominic Polcino, Ralph Sosa, Susie Dietter, Jim Reardon and Rich Moore were storyboard artists on The Simpsons before becoming full-time directors on the show later through its run. For Futurama's case, this is the first show that storyboard artists like Shawn Murray (specifically the episode " When Aliens Attack"), Aaron Rozenfeld, Tom King, Rodney Clouden, Dave Cunningham and newcomers like Chris Sonnenberg, Miguel Puga and Stuart Livingston worked on. After the original run was cancelled, Shawn moved to Nickelodeon to work on Invader Zim and The Fairly OddParents and also worked on Family Guy and American Dad!, Aaron and Tom both moved to The Fairly OddParents after being laid offed (the entire original crew was laid offed after it was cancelled, so that's why not too many original animation crew members were involved in the revival, also because of budget), Rodney is currently a producer for the upcoming Marvel series Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, and Dave Cunningham would later work on SpongeBob. After the revival was cancelled (although its coming back on Hulu next year), Chris would later show-run Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, Miguel would later become a storyboard artist on The Fairly OddParents and The Loud House and would later show-run its spin-off The Casagrandes, and Stuart also moved to The Loud House but he was also a director and storyboard artist on The Owl House, the same show created by a former Gravity Falls crew member. One more thing to point out is that someone was adding overseas studios. The only show I can think of anyways is both Avatar and Korra. I know its a bit understandable given that Avatar has three different studios throughout its run (such as JM, DR Movie and MOI). For Korra's case although majority of the series is animated by Studio Mir, some season 2 episodes were outsourced by Pierrot (the same studio who did Naruto) and people HATED their animation for being too inconsistent and Mir being the superior studio than Pierrot. Coincidentally, they were fired after season 2. But I already mentioned, someone added the animation studios and the storyboard artists next to each other meaning its over clogging the page. Thankfully, I did the overseas studios for Book 1 but I have yet to do Books 2 and 3. If you want to know which animation did what episode of Avatar or Korra, go to the main page since did mention how many episodes the studios did. Good thing no other cartoons suffered for it (specifically shows that are animated by more than one overseas studio like The Simpsons and King of the Hill). So you see, some storyboard artists would be important to the animation industry, as they later created some of the more acclaimed modern cartoons and if they didn't work on any these shows, most of the newer stuff would've never happened. Can you please restore all of my storyboard edits for most of the shows I mentioned (the shows being The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad!, Futurama, Bob's Burgers (although I only did the first season so far), The Great North and Disenchantment)? I worked so hard on adding those pages, but you are taking it all away! Not to mention some of these artists were later important to the industry. The animation industry is trying to get a new deal animation since they are not being paid enough unlike live action shows. This INCLUDES storyboard artists. Storyboard artists are important to the industry and not just the writers and directors. I mean the same applies to stuff such as editors, cinematographers, effects artists, background artists, character designers, prop designers, etc. I'm not trying to rant that storyboard artists on Wikipedia is bad and I should ignore it, but I'm just proving you guys that storyboard artists (no matter if its credited in the opening or closing credits) are important! Please stop reverting my storyboard edits for most primetime shows in general! I took my time to search for them either from Wikipedia or online and it took a while to do it. Now since you reverted all of my edits, its looks a bit jumbled up. Specifically if the episode has two or three writers or directors, it's going to push words down a bit for example ("Directed by Steven Speilberg & Alan Smithee-Not Real). Can you please first of all restore my storyboard edits for the shows I mentioned? I apologized to all the users who suffered me for putting the edits without explanation. Thank you, have a nice day and SUPPORT STORYBOARD ARTISTS! :) 69.255.225.138 ( talk) 19:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
That is not what a consensus is. A consensus means a clear agreement between a multitude of editors, not just an explanation. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
write a consensus. You present something you wish to be different or changed, editors discuss, and through that consensus is built. For example, in this discussion, consensus is in support of removing storyboard credits in many, if not all, instances for animated series. You shouting things loudly and beating a dead horse doesn't change nor sway the current consensus, seeing as you have not backed up your rationale with policy, guidelines, or past discussions that created a different consensus. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 01:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I made another section since it didn't have space, I didn't post my comment but my question is, how could a do a consensus-building for the article "List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1-20)"? 69.255.225.138 ( talk) 01:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. You are clearing not abiding the general consensus which is to not include storyboard artists on episode tables which have already stated by multiple editors. You are dead set to add the storyboard credits regardless of the general consensus. Not accepting a general consensus is not how Wikipedia works here. "My way or the highway" is not how it works on Wikipedia either. As said by multiple editors, if you want to add them, go to Wikias or other external wikis. — YoungForever (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
begging repeatedly is not going to change other editors' minds. That is exactly what you are doing. — YoungForever (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
you failed to change other editors' minds, you need to drop it and move on.You can't make nor force people to change their minds. That's not how Wikipedia works nor how the real world works. I have already answered them, as I said before, go see Favre1fan93's comment above where he talked about consensus. — YoungForever (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I know this convo is probs dead, but I wanted to chime in here: Some shows, like Adventure Time, are storyboard-driven; in that case, the board artists are the 'main' writers, and thus they are listed as the writers on episode/season articles. Other shows, like The Simpsons are script-driven; with these, it is the script writers who are the 'main' writers. As Nohomersryan noted, "For scripted cartoons ... the storyboard artist is largely not that important," and while I might quibble with the use of "not that important", I would agree that it's overkill to include them in episode/season lists. I don't, however, think including them in episode artists is that bad of an idea, unless there is, like, 50 board artists for an episode. Ultimately with those pages, I feel it's best left as a case-by-case discussion topic.-- Gen. Quon [Talk] (I'm studying Wikipedia!) 16:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
MTV Splitsvilla (season 13) needs some assistance. While the recent IP edits are probably vandalism, reference #2's title contradicts the URLs content. I am confused, any help would be appreciated. Commander Keane ( talk) 02:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series) § Ep 1 writer credits. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. —
YoungForever
(talk)
14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I have taken the DVD cover and the season-specific logo to the FFD discussion. Your input there are welcome George Ho ( talk) 00:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
So, NFL Slimetime premiered its second season a few weeks back. However, due to the article's importance being rated "Low", no one has been able to update it (increasing the episode count and adding the weekly NVP). I've been doing this for nearly a month, and I am tired of being the only contributor. Feel free to reply with any thoughts about this. BrickMaster02 ( talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:His Dark Materials (TV series). I'm not quite sure, but it looks like there's an editor there who is of the opinion that premiere dates for future seasons, that are reliably sourced, cannot be included in the lead per
WP:CRYSTAL. I've responded saying that CRYSTAL would still support these additions, which are common practice for WikiProject Television articles. --
Alex_21
TALK
02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
A few days ago I removed all anime from the various Years in American television articles, for reasons discussed on my talk page. Probably should have made this announcement sooner, but better late than never, I suppose. 100.7.44.80 ( talk) 21:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Buidhe has nominated CSI effect for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
What is the stance of using this site as a source for cartoon information? I don't know where else it's used, but I know it's used widely throughout the SpongeBob SquarePants articles, I believe primarily as a source for episodes' production codes.
As stated on the article here for the website, there have been system issues leading to the site going defunct in 2019, and not having any information beyond then. I'm not exactly sure if WP:USERG applies, as they have a whole list of many sources titled as 'Those who have helped'. My only thinking there is that it may be considered user-generated as the first thing listed is 'Various BCDB Users'. The article here on Wikipedia also states that, "Users are no longer able to contribute to the site due to the issue."
So I'm not quite sure what the stance here is regarding BCDB being used as a source. Should this still be getting used as a source? And if not, should the information being sourced by it be removed or have the citation replaced with 'citation needed'?... Magitroopa ( talk) 16:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)