![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I haven't delved very deeply into this, but from looking at the articles for Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown and The Peoples Court there seems to be room for improvement in the Television infobox. Those three each list their format as judicial, which is a page describing the judicial system. Would it make more sense to have a judicial (television) article describing judicial TV shows? -- dinomite 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There is way too many cultural references on just about all of them. This is very trivial, plus is too much detail for an episode article. The show revolves around them: so these sections are basically scene by scene guides to the show, which isn't suitable. I suggest people being bold and moving the sections to the Family Guy wiki at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:familyguy. This nonsense needs to end, and by having the sections at all: just encourages people to expand them to every little thing that happened in the show. The problem has gone on for a while, and I've seen no one even attempt to clean the sections much. Any thoughts? RobJ1981 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand it. For example, Lost averaged 16.05 million viewers in its first season, [1] yet the episode with the least amount of viewers had 16.54 million viewers and when you do the math, the average number of viewers per episode was 18.38 million. [2] – thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, starting over. In its third season, Lost changed timeslots. On ABC Medianet, the day after a show airs, the preliminary numbers are released. Every Tuesday, they publish a full list of all shows with DVR playing within 24 hours after broadcast added. Those are the final numbers. In its sixteen-episode run in its new timeslot, Lost was said by ABC Medianet to have averaged 13.82 million [3]. This does not add up, because the show had the following number of viewers in millions each week: 14.49, [4] 12.84, [5] 12.95, [6] 12.78, [7] 12.45, [8] 12.48, [9] 12.22, [10] 11.52, [11] 11.66, [12] 12.09, [13] 12.08, [14] 11.86, [15] 12.33, [16] 12.11, [17] 12.32, [18] and 13.86. [19] If you average these numbers by adding them all together and dividing by sixteen, you get 12.49 million viewers. – thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed on just about every Family Guy episode article: a censorship section. I don't see how this is notable. Things are censored all the time, how is Family Guy any different? I would imagine there is more examples, but Family Guy is the main example I see of listing all the ways something has been censorsed. I want to point out: it's not talking about censorship in general, it's a list of all the censors that took place when Family Guy aired in syndication and in reruns. RobJ1981 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an increasing problem of Wikia spam on Wikipedia. A Wikia itself is not notable simply because it's hosted by Wikia or because it's a wiki, as such it must meet external linking guidelines (in the same fashion any non-Wikia hosted wiki would).
I do suspect that one or two people may be on their pay roll, haha. Matthew 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think one editor's voice would necessarily be seen as the voice of the community.
The real question is this: the guideline discourages "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
So what does "substantial" mean? You said that three editors aren't enough. How many is enough? Ten? Twenty? Is that total editors over the life of the wiki, or active editors in any given month?
If the guideline included objective criteria for making the decision, then people could discuss those criteria, and see if they actually filter out what we want them to. With vague, subjective criteria, the guideline encourages arbitrary behavior on all sides, and it closes down discussion more often than it opens it up. -- Danny ( talk) 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem, whatsoever, with our relationship with Wikia wikis. As another site that supports free-content collaboration, it's perfectly natural that we support them as they support us. This is pretty much a standing offer with any well made wiki, not just Wikia. WikiProject Digimon is about to under go a big project to transwiki a lot of our stuff to the Digimon Wikia, which will be a collaboration involving many of the same people. I'm looking forward to the project, and cross linking between the two wikis is going to be pretty important. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I would consider five active, signed-in editors in the current month to be a stable wiki. If both Bionic wikis reach that standard, then yes, I think we should link to both.
I think "well-made" is a personal opinion, and doesn't factor into this discussion. There are many successful, active wikis that I personally don't care for, for a number of reasons. But if they reach an objective standard for "substantial number of contributors", then it's not about what I like or don't like. That's why I'm arguing for a reasonable objective standard, to take it out of the realm of personal opinion. -- Danny ( talk) 16:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Every single issue that you described would apply equally to the sites that you think are okay -- Wookieepedia, Battlestar Wiki, Memory Alpha and Muppet Wiki. Those are fansites. They all use copyrighted images. They can all be found by search engines.
The question here is not whether a wiki is ever acceptable as an external link -- as you've said, some wikis are "good" and some are not. My question, as always, is: What distinction are you making between the good wikis and the bad wikis?
You say that five contributors in a month isn't enough to justify stability. What is enough? How's ten? -- Danny ( talk) 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
A lack of written policy or guideline does not make something forbidden. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If a Wikia is breaking copyright violations, then report it to Wikia (there's a link on every page to do this), and constant violators will be shut down. If there is other issues, deal with it on the talk page of said article. Matthew, you are taking an extreme position on something that, for the most part, hasn't been an issue, which is probably why we've been so informal about it. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
We link to imdb and tv.com because they are the most widely used and most widely recognized "wide-topic" coverage places of "reasonable quality" of filmographies and release/air-dates. Their linking has been questioned before, but all-in-all people just like to have those things at hand. It's like having the episode count in your article. On its own its useless, but a couple of those small things together are sometimes useful. That does not mean however that we should use those 2 EL-"exceptions" to basically white-list all the other "crap". The more topic-specific these external links become, the more problematic basically. The reason is that it becomes more obscure. If IMDB would start to "really suck" people would report on this, and you would definitely see wide criticisme, possibly leading to a turn-around in administration of the site, a split, or the entire downfall of the site. If one of these wikia wiki's makes some goofs what is the likelihood that the "public at large" will be able to judge these sites properly on their mistakes? Also imdb mostly is a "factbook", now some of those facts may not be accurate at times, but more importantly the site does not give "encyclopedic" background either. There is no analysis or research involved and almost anyone who ever visited imdb.com knows this. People go to imdb.com to find basic info on broadcasting history and the filmography of actors. Not to find the history and story of the creation of the movie or all the things that went wrong when the movie was being filmed. This is also why trivia from imdb should never be used in wikipedia (it's not part of the core-business of imdb, much like keeping filmographies is not the core-business of wikipedia). (you might notice I talk less about tv.com Read the above, and you might be able to guess why).
In the basics wherever we link to wiki's (user generated external sites) most important is the way this information is compounded. Is there any editorial behaviour going on, or is it complete fandom writing? What are the quality requirements there and are they being adhered? What is the "usefulness" of the site (what does it have that wikipedia or imdb or fansite or official webpage does not have) ? Also any wiki should have found it's "notability" from outside wikipedia. There can be no case where a wiki grows to become the most "popular" wiki simply because it's the one linked from Wikipedia. It should have established itself within the community of a topic as such a source long before Wikipedia would ever link it. Every fan needs to expect that specific link
Also remember that for instance we only link to ONE fansite (officially) if it is widely recognized as being a useful place and being the most popular fansite on the topic. Also, is this "fansite" viable, or will it likely be gone within the year? Has it become "notable" in itself (not for an article, but for mention on the wikipedia article of the show that is)? Those are important questions to ask every time we add an external link.
In conclusion, we deal with basically 4 kinds of ELs.
These 4 kinds of links have different properties, and therefore the inclusion guidelines also need to be interpreted different per category and per inclusion of the link. It is part of the nature of these categories. Each and everytime we need to judge them on all the questions raised above. Personally, I think we should create a "this talkpage is not a discussion forum" template, which includes links to episodeguides, fansites etc, just to avoid them ending up in the articles too much. Everyone who asks for "specific guidelines" is out of luck. It's just impossible. Please assume good faith on any edits and listen to your fellow editors. It's logical that some sites on the Simpsons are more widely excepted to be in the ELs then some sites for Bionic Woman, but to set in stone where that line in-between should be is impossible. There is nothing wrong with that, it's Wikipedia. Oh and we should DEFINITELY NOT prefer wikia links by default. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've listed List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series) for deletion. The AFD listing can be found here. -- Wikipedical 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of work to be done to get this into good article status. So I was wondering if I could get help? It's almost impossible to know if the pages I find on Google are trustable or just some random bullshit, since there are a lot of parody sites that use similar format as news sites. Peter is a TV animated character, and since Family Guy is actually more for adults than children I figured I should go here instead of the U.S. Animation WikiProject. Help would be nice, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think (though I might be wrong) that I've found a significant gap in Wikipedia's coverage of media organizations. I'm just sampling opinion at relevant WikiProjects to see if someone more informed has any ideas. The process of commissioning content for television and radio networks is an important one, with commissioning editors being notable media figures. The process affects the people who write and produce media content, as well as the commercial fortunes of the networks. Balances have to be made between artistic and commercial considerations, audience demographics (e.g. commissioning shows designed to attract younger or more affluent viewers), and in some circumstances, public service commitments. Should there be an article on this subject that explains details like how a show gets commissioned (who has to persuade whom? Are formats prepared to a brief specified by the network? What sort of test-screening or pilot schemes can be used to test a show's viability?), what the role of a commissioning editor is (I'm guessing they aren't in charge of scheduling a show... in multi-channel companies, can they even decide which channel it should be broadcast on? Is the tendency for different channels to have separate commissioning editors? Are commissioning editors' roles generally field-specific e.g. "Controller of Drama Commissioning", "Commissioning Editor for Factual Entertainment"? Presumably they have to work within the budget allocated to their area by their network, but do they have leeway to negotiate prices when trying to secure content or does that have to be authorized from higher up the company? Who becomes a commissioning editor anyway, and what is it the stepping stone to?), and what are the differences in the process between organizations with their own production facilities and those that rely on external independent producers - I presume the pitching process works differently? How do networks decide on when to re-commission a series? (In the middle of its run or at its end? Is it tied in to the advertising cycle that exists in some countries? In a first season of a show, are only the first few episodes commissioned in case it bombs, with an expectation that the rest of the season will be commissioned if they fare well?) Are there any particularly notable re-commissioning decisions? (I know that the re-commissioning of the original Star Trek for its final season, after an initial cancellation, only came after a major fan campaign - I'm sure such fan campaigns aren't unusual, but how is such a success rare?) As a general rule, how long after an original show is commissioned is that show actually ready to air? These are all questions I don't know the answers to, but I think Wikipedia should address them somewhere. Should there be an article at programming commissioning, commissioning editor or commissioning director that covers this sort of thing? So that replies gather in a central place, it's probably a good idea to post any thoughts at Talk:Commission where I wrote at first. I hope my query makes sense! TheGrappler 08:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently put alot of images from the show Maui Fever up for deletion, but i'm having trouble trying to remove images from from the episodes section. Attempts by me have met with possible formatting problems. Can anyone help me and remove them entirely?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A question - are tables of weekly ratings considered encyclopedic? I've removed them from a few articles for television shows because it doesn't seem appropriate to have a table of week-to-week numbers for U.S. viewers. (The data is irrelevant to anyone outside of the U.S., it is difficult to get similar numbers for all broadcasters, and the charts inspire amateur analysis of the series' possible fate.) Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The above named project recently was nominated for deletion and kept. As a result of the discussion, the article was tagged as inactive. It was also proposed during the discussion that the project be merged to this one. I am now formally proposing the merger as was indicated there. John Carter 15:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've cleared the backlog of assessment requests. We're standing on approximately 4700 articles to be assessed now. This should be faster as there is no need to leave comments when assessing an article without request. Would anyone like to help out? I'll pledge 10 a day if someone will assist me. Would only take us 204 days to get the lot done with two people at 10 a day!-- Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Collectonian. Redirects should either have the banner deleted or should be given the assessment {{television|class=NA|importance=low}} to list them as non-articles. I'm not sure which is more appropriate. Does anyone know?
It would be better to have a quality scale based on television articles. However, determining criteria for the rankings on the scale should be a collaborative effort. It would mean creating a few different versions probably i.e. one for television show pages, one for television episode pages etc.
Currently stub class in the quality scale reads: "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible." I don't think we need to change this but we should link to a couple of examples as Sguerka suggested. I'll keep an eye out on my next run through. Am I right in thinking its the high-end rankings where we need a bit more guidance, or is it everything? I think there are three key elements to most articles to do with television shows - production (cast, crew, broadcasting, music, location etc.), response (critical reception, awards and ratings) and plot. For an article to make B-class I'd suggest it needs to attempt to cover all 3 in reasonable depth and does not contain an overlong plot summary. I'm fond of saying in my assessment comments; I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here. Perhaps we should start by making an effort to adapt the TV series guidelines into the quality scale as this is an area written by consensus, what do you think?-- Opark 77 10:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A.E.S. Hudson Street is my first stub of the day. Its unsectioned and short which makes it a clear example.-- Opark 77 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A.U.S.A. is another example. These two short-lived shows don't really assert notability so perhaps a more notable example would be better.-- Opark 77 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Woo hoo! Zs are done! Hey, we're down below 4400! It may seem slow, but we're making a lot of progress! :D
I did have a question, though. Some projects seem to set list as the rating for list articles, and I just wanted to make sure that was what we do with ours as well since our List section seems rather small? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a task force for people working in the television industry. WP:Biography has an arts and entertainment task force which loosely covers this but there are potentially many notable television writers, directors and actors so it might be worth us focusing on it too. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters which covers both film and television writers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers which covers exclusively people in the film industry and not television. As it stands wikipedia does not have a community associated with supporting articles detailing the people involved in creating television. I have no problem with the taskforce being hosted by WP:Biography but it seems like it should be a joint effort between this project and the Biography project.-- Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I proposed a task force to focus on Maryland produced television and film for wikiproject Maryland. This would include the TV programs Homicide: Life on the Street, The Corner and The Wire amongst other articles. Would anyone be interested? Would anyone object to the project being hosted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland. I think it makes the most sense for them to have it as all articles fall under their mandate while only the television related articles would fall under ours.-- Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:Biography have automated some of their assessment process. I believe they use bots to assess articles in stub categories as stubs. Does anyone have a bot? Would anyone like to attempt this for WP:TV. Above there is a question about redirect pages with the WP:TV tag. Could we automate the removal of these tags or the automatic assessment of class=NA (non-article) for these pages?-- Opark 77 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I archived the rest of the September items from here, which I hope was okay to do (didn't know if someone else normally took care of it or not).
Also, I was wondering what anyone thought of the idea of us having some tags similar to the film project's tags? I find them wonderfully useful for my work in there, especially the need image tag, and I think it could help us out here too for handing to do items. I'd be willing to try making similar ones for us, if others agree that would be a useful addition? Collectonian 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just popping in to say that I love the new templates! -- Ned Scott 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is an article on a Columbo character notable enough to warrant an own article, like this one here? Should probably be removed no. Oblomow 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Judge Judy requires assessment, probably a rewrite. Not my typical area of interest, but I came across it during other business and think it needs a major overhaul and copy edit. There is an editor displaying ownership issues; I've tried to start gradually in the hopes of working with him, but am encountering strong resistance. I've run User:AndyZ's peer review script on the article ( this version) and I'd appreciate any input and contributions you might have. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I would like to request that Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik be merge into Maging Sino Ka Man since Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik is season 2 of Maging Sino Ka Man. Thanks! -chris^_^ ( talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I noted that the above portal page has recently been turned into a redirect to the main article. Can anyone tell me why this was done, and/or whether you believe that the old portal should be restored? Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've stumbled across the merge discussion of several character articles related to Scrubs (TV series) (which can be found here) and something User:TTN wrote made me think about guidance for writing about television characters. The discussion included commentary on the appropriate length of plot related sections in character articles. Apparently the relevant guidelines are WP:WAF/ WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. However, while these guidelines imply limitations of the length of plot they are non-specific. Our guidance on episode coverage is very specific about using roughly 10 words per minute of screen time. Can we work together to come up with similar guidance for television articles about characters?-- Opark 77 ( talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that the list of TV articles up for deletion has been updated. Several of the current nominations are ones I made as part of the on going effort to clean up some of our TV articles and get rid of the fancrufty articles that do not add value to our articles. I think it would be good to get some comments on these nominations from more TV Project as most of the voting appear to be coming from the article fans and a few regular AfD voters. Not asking for a specific vote, but would like more input from other folks "in the trenches" so to speak who actually deal with TV articles on a regular basis. :) AnmaFinotera ( talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i recently noticed this wikiproject and i was looking at some of the taskforces/projects associated to it. I was wondering what the process is to creating a taskforce as i am interested in creating one for Scrubs. Eddie6705 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am Alejandro Roggio from the Pro Wrestling WikiProject. I am here to ask of you if the articles about pro wrestling pay per view events should be part of your WikiProject. I thought they were, but none of them have WikiProject Television notices on their talk pages. Please reply, Lex T/ C Guest Book 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of pro wrestling PPVs, but here are the best written articles
FA:
FAC:
GA:
GAN:
Lex T/ C Guest Book 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ed g2s ( talk · contribs) is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of television screenshots to identify a series or article in an infobox, per his argument they should be used for critical commentary and not for identification. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A group of IPs has been adding new episode information to Lloyd in Space since August. I just undid the whole thing and was reverted by an IP. I don't want to get in an edit war with these people so I thought I would let you guys handle it. DCEdwards1966 ( talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on
talk page.
Nehrams2020 (
talk)
06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, there has been a big surge in the removal of articles about individual episodes of TV shows recently. It's sparked a dispute over the guideline that was used as justification for this. The discussion is going on over at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, I figure since this is likely of significant importance to this Wikiproject I should drop a note here to let you know. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Needs revision and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Acceptable direction for WP:FICT guideline. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe "every last episode of every last television article every created should have its own article" nor do I believe that any article should contain "a blow by blow of the plot and silly trivia notes." Nevertheless, I do think there has been a movement to be overly harsh on articles about elements of fiction and to rigidly interpret/apply "rules". I do not necessarily believe that 98% of episode and character articles need to be nuked immediately, either. I think WP:EPISODE has some legitimate problems and drifts into the realm of instruction creep. Combine that with the way "some people have been handling the situation" lately, and you have an explanation for the boil over instead of blow over situation we find ourselves in now. I am working on an essay detailing this issue and would covet other editors contributions and improvements. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2007 (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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I haven't delved very deeply into this, but from looking at the articles for Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown and The Peoples Court there seems to be room for improvement in the Television infobox. Those three each list their format as judicial, which is a page describing the judicial system. Would it make more sense to have a judicial (television) article describing judicial TV shows? -- dinomite 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
There is way too many cultural references on just about all of them. This is very trivial, plus is too much detail for an episode article. The show revolves around them: so these sections are basically scene by scene guides to the show, which isn't suitable. I suggest people being bold and moving the sections to the Family Guy wiki at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:familyguy. This nonsense needs to end, and by having the sections at all: just encourages people to expand them to every little thing that happened in the show. The problem has gone on for a while, and I've seen no one even attempt to clean the sections much. Any thoughts? RobJ1981 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand it. For example, Lost averaged 16.05 million viewers in its first season, [1] yet the episode with the least amount of viewers had 16.54 million viewers and when you do the math, the average number of viewers per episode was 18.38 million. [2] – thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, starting over. In its third season, Lost changed timeslots. On ABC Medianet, the day after a show airs, the preliminary numbers are released. Every Tuesday, they publish a full list of all shows with DVR playing within 24 hours after broadcast added. Those are the final numbers. In its sixteen-episode run in its new timeslot, Lost was said by ABC Medianet to have averaged 13.82 million [3]. This does not add up, because the show had the following number of viewers in millions each week: 14.49, [4] 12.84, [5] 12.95, [6] 12.78, [7] 12.45, [8] 12.48, [9] 12.22, [10] 11.52, [11] 11.66, [12] 12.09, [13] 12.08, [14] 11.86, [15] 12.33, [16] 12.11, [17] 12.32, [18] and 13.86. [19] If you average these numbers by adding them all together and dividing by sixteen, you get 12.49 million viewers. – thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed on just about every Family Guy episode article: a censorship section. I don't see how this is notable. Things are censored all the time, how is Family Guy any different? I would imagine there is more examples, but Family Guy is the main example I see of listing all the ways something has been censorsed. I want to point out: it's not talking about censorship in general, it's a list of all the censors that took place when Family Guy aired in syndication and in reruns. RobJ1981 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be an increasing problem of Wikia spam on Wikipedia. A Wikia itself is not notable simply because it's hosted by Wikia or because it's a wiki, as such it must meet external linking guidelines (in the same fashion any non-Wikia hosted wiki would).
I do suspect that one or two people may be on their pay roll, haha. Matthew 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think one editor's voice would necessarily be seen as the voice of the community.
The real question is this: the guideline discourages "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."
So what does "substantial" mean? You said that three editors aren't enough. How many is enough? Ten? Twenty? Is that total editors over the life of the wiki, or active editors in any given month?
If the guideline included objective criteria for making the decision, then people could discuss those criteria, and see if they actually filter out what we want them to. With vague, subjective criteria, the guideline encourages arbitrary behavior on all sides, and it closes down discussion more often than it opens it up. -- Danny ( talk) 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem, whatsoever, with our relationship with Wikia wikis. As another site that supports free-content collaboration, it's perfectly natural that we support them as they support us. This is pretty much a standing offer with any well made wiki, not just Wikia. WikiProject Digimon is about to under go a big project to transwiki a lot of our stuff to the Digimon Wikia, which will be a collaboration involving many of the same people. I'm looking forward to the project, and cross linking between the two wikis is going to be pretty important. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I would consider five active, signed-in editors in the current month to be a stable wiki. If both Bionic wikis reach that standard, then yes, I think we should link to both.
I think "well-made" is a personal opinion, and doesn't factor into this discussion. There are many successful, active wikis that I personally don't care for, for a number of reasons. But if they reach an objective standard for "substantial number of contributors", then it's not about what I like or don't like. That's why I'm arguing for a reasonable objective standard, to take it out of the realm of personal opinion. -- Danny ( talk) 16:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Every single issue that you described would apply equally to the sites that you think are okay -- Wookieepedia, Battlestar Wiki, Memory Alpha and Muppet Wiki. Those are fansites. They all use copyrighted images. They can all be found by search engines.
The question here is not whether a wiki is ever acceptable as an external link -- as you've said, some wikis are "good" and some are not. My question, as always, is: What distinction are you making between the good wikis and the bad wikis?
You say that five contributors in a month isn't enough to justify stability. What is enough? How's ten? -- Danny ( talk) 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
A lack of written policy or guideline does not make something forbidden. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If a Wikia is breaking copyright violations, then report it to Wikia (there's a link on every page to do this), and constant violators will be shut down. If there is other issues, deal with it on the talk page of said article. Matthew, you are taking an extreme position on something that, for the most part, hasn't been an issue, which is probably why we've been so informal about it. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
We link to imdb and tv.com because they are the most widely used and most widely recognized "wide-topic" coverage places of "reasonable quality" of filmographies and release/air-dates. Their linking has been questioned before, but all-in-all people just like to have those things at hand. It's like having the episode count in your article. On its own its useless, but a couple of those small things together are sometimes useful. That does not mean however that we should use those 2 EL-"exceptions" to basically white-list all the other "crap". The more topic-specific these external links become, the more problematic basically. The reason is that it becomes more obscure. If IMDB would start to "really suck" people would report on this, and you would definitely see wide criticisme, possibly leading to a turn-around in administration of the site, a split, or the entire downfall of the site. If one of these wikia wiki's makes some goofs what is the likelihood that the "public at large" will be able to judge these sites properly on their mistakes? Also imdb mostly is a "factbook", now some of those facts may not be accurate at times, but more importantly the site does not give "encyclopedic" background either. There is no analysis or research involved and almost anyone who ever visited imdb.com knows this. People go to imdb.com to find basic info on broadcasting history and the filmography of actors. Not to find the history and story of the creation of the movie or all the things that went wrong when the movie was being filmed. This is also why trivia from imdb should never be used in wikipedia (it's not part of the core-business of imdb, much like keeping filmographies is not the core-business of wikipedia). (you might notice I talk less about tv.com Read the above, and you might be able to guess why).
In the basics wherever we link to wiki's (user generated external sites) most important is the way this information is compounded. Is there any editorial behaviour going on, or is it complete fandom writing? What are the quality requirements there and are they being adhered? What is the "usefulness" of the site (what does it have that wikipedia or imdb or fansite or official webpage does not have) ? Also any wiki should have found it's "notability" from outside wikipedia. There can be no case where a wiki grows to become the most "popular" wiki simply because it's the one linked from Wikipedia. It should have established itself within the community of a topic as such a source long before Wikipedia would ever link it. Every fan needs to expect that specific link
Also remember that for instance we only link to ONE fansite (officially) if it is widely recognized as being a useful place and being the most popular fansite on the topic. Also, is this "fansite" viable, or will it likely be gone within the year? Has it become "notable" in itself (not for an article, but for mention on the wikipedia article of the show that is)? Those are important questions to ask every time we add an external link.
In conclusion, we deal with basically 4 kinds of ELs.
These 4 kinds of links have different properties, and therefore the inclusion guidelines also need to be interpreted different per category and per inclusion of the link. It is part of the nature of these categories. Each and everytime we need to judge them on all the questions raised above. Personally, I think we should create a "this talkpage is not a discussion forum" template, which includes links to episodeguides, fansites etc, just to avoid them ending up in the articles too much. Everyone who asks for "specific guidelines" is out of luck. It's just impossible. Please assume good faith on any edits and listen to your fellow editors. It's logical that some sites on the Simpsons are more widely excepted to be in the ELs then some sites for Bionic Woman, but to set in stone where that line in-between should be is impossible. There is nothing wrong with that, it's Wikipedia. Oh and we should DEFINITELY NOT prefer wikia links by default. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I've listed List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series) for deletion. The AFD listing can be found here. -- Wikipedical 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of work to be done to get this into good article status. So I was wondering if I could get help? It's almost impossible to know if the pages I find on Google are trustable or just some random bullshit, since there are a lot of parody sites that use similar format as news sites. Peter is a TV animated character, and since Family Guy is actually more for adults than children I figured I should go here instead of the U.S. Animation WikiProject. Help would be nice, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think (though I might be wrong) that I've found a significant gap in Wikipedia's coverage of media organizations. I'm just sampling opinion at relevant WikiProjects to see if someone more informed has any ideas. The process of commissioning content for television and radio networks is an important one, with commissioning editors being notable media figures. The process affects the people who write and produce media content, as well as the commercial fortunes of the networks. Balances have to be made between artistic and commercial considerations, audience demographics (e.g. commissioning shows designed to attract younger or more affluent viewers), and in some circumstances, public service commitments. Should there be an article on this subject that explains details like how a show gets commissioned (who has to persuade whom? Are formats prepared to a brief specified by the network? What sort of test-screening or pilot schemes can be used to test a show's viability?), what the role of a commissioning editor is (I'm guessing they aren't in charge of scheduling a show... in multi-channel companies, can they even decide which channel it should be broadcast on? Is the tendency for different channels to have separate commissioning editors? Are commissioning editors' roles generally field-specific e.g. "Controller of Drama Commissioning", "Commissioning Editor for Factual Entertainment"? Presumably they have to work within the budget allocated to their area by their network, but do they have leeway to negotiate prices when trying to secure content or does that have to be authorized from higher up the company? Who becomes a commissioning editor anyway, and what is it the stepping stone to?), and what are the differences in the process between organizations with their own production facilities and those that rely on external independent producers - I presume the pitching process works differently? How do networks decide on when to re-commission a series? (In the middle of its run or at its end? Is it tied in to the advertising cycle that exists in some countries? In a first season of a show, are only the first few episodes commissioned in case it bombs, with an expectation that the rest of the season will be commissioned if they fare well?) Are there any particularly notable re-commissioning decisions? (I know that the re-commissioning of the original Star Trek for its final season, after an initial cancellation, only came after a major fan campaign - I'm sure such fan campaigns aren't unusual, but how is such a success rare?) As a general rule, how long after an original show is commissioned is that show actually ready to air? These are all questions I don't know the answers to, but I think Wikipedia should address them somewhere. Should there be an article at programming commissioning, commissioning editor or commissioning director that covers this sort of thing? So that replies gather in a central place, it's probably a good idea to post any thoughts at Talk:Commission where I wrote at first. I hope my query makes sense! TheGrappler 08:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently put alot of images from the show Maui Fever up for deletion, but i'm having trouble trying to remove images from from the episodes section. Attempts by me have met with possible formatting problems. Can anyone help me and remove them entirely?-- 293.xx.xxx.xx 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
A question - are tables of weekly ratings considered encyclopedic? I've removed them from a few articles for television shows because it doesn't seem appropriate to have a table of week-to-week numbers for U.S. viewers. (The data is irrelevant to anyone outside of the U.S., it is difficult to get similar numbers for all broadcasters, and the charts inspire amateur analysis of the series' possible fate.) Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The above named project recently was nominated for deletion and kept. As a result of the discussion, the article was tagged as inactive. It was also proposed during the discussion that the project be merged to this one. I am now formally proposing the merger as was indicated there. John Carter 15:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've cleared the backlog of assessment requests. We're standing on approximately 4700 articles to be assessed now. This should be faster as there is no need to leave comments when assessing an article without request. Would anyone like to help out? I'll pledge 10 a day if someone will assist me. Would only take us 204 days to get the lot done with two people at 10 a day!-- Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Collectonian. Redirects should either have the banner deleted or should be given the assessment {{television|class=NA|importance=low}} to list them as non-articles. I'm not sure which is more appropriate. Does anyone know?
It would be better to have a quality scale based on television articles. However, determining criteria for the rankings on the scale should be a collaborative effort. It would mean creating a few different versions probably i.e. one for television show pages, one for television episode pages etc.
Currently stub class in the quality scale reads: "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible." I don't think we need to change this but we should link to a couple of examples as Sguerka suggested. I'll keep an eye out on my next run through. Am I right in thinking its the high-end rankings where we need a bit more guidance, or is it everything? I think there are three key elements to most articles to do with television shows - production (cast, crew, broadcasting, music, location etc.), response (critical reception, awards and ratings) and plot. For an article to make B-class I'd suggest it needs to attempt to cover all 3 in reasonable depth and does not contain an overlong plot summary. I'm fond of saying in my assessment comments; I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here. Perhaps we should start by making an effort to adapt the TV series guidelines into the quality scale as this is an area written by consensus, what do you think?-- Opark 77 10:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A.E.S. Hudson Street is my first stub of the day. Its unsectioned and short which makes it a clear example.-- Opark 77 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
A.U.S.A. is another example. These two short-lived shows don't really assert notability so perhaps a more notable example would be better.-- Opark 77 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Woo hoo! Zs are done! Hey, we're down below 4400! It may seem slow, but we're making a lot of progress! :D
I did have a question, though. Some projects seem to set list as the rating for list articles, and I just wanted to make sure that was what we do with ours as well since our List section seems rather small? AnmaFinotera ( talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a task force for people working in the television industry. WP:Biography has an arts and entertainment task force which loosely covers this but there are potentially many notable television writers, directors and actors so it might be worth us focusing on it too. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters which covers both film and television writers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers which covers exclusively people in the film industry and not television. As it stands wikipedia does not have a community associated with supporting articles detailing the people involved in creating television. I have no problem with the taskforce being hosted by WP:Biography but it seems like it should be a joint effort between this project and the Biography project.-- Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I proposed a task force to focus on Maryland produced television and film for wikiproject Maryland. This would include the TV programs Homicide: Life on the Street, The Corner and The Wire amongst other articles. Would anyone be interested? Would anyone object to the project being hosted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland. I think it makes the most sense for them to have it as all articles fall under their mandate while only the television related articles would fall under ours.-- Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:Biography have automated some of their assessment process. I believe they use bots to assess articles in stub categories as stubs. Does anyone have a bot? Would anyone like to attempt this for WP:TV. Above there is a question about redirect pages with the WP:TV tag. Could we automate the removal of these tags or the automatic assessment of class=NA (non-article) for these pages?-- Opark 77 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I archived the rest of the September items from here, which I hope was okay to do (didn't know if someone else normally took care of it or not).
Also, I was wondering what anyone thought of the idea of us having some tags similar to the film project's tags? I find them wonderfully useful for my work in there, especially the need image tag, and I think it could help us out here too for handing to do items. I'd be willing to try making similar ones for us, if others agree that would be a useful addition? Collectonian 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Just popping in to say that I love the new templates! -- Ned Scott 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Is an article on a Columbo character notable enough to warrant an own article, like this one here? Should probably be removed no. Oblomow 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Judge Judy requires assessment, probably a rewrite. Not my typical area of interest, but I came across it during other business and think it needs a major overhaul and copy edit. There is an editor displaying ownership issues; I've tried to start gradually in the hopes of working with him, but am encountering strong resistance. I've run User:AndyZ's peer review script on the article ( this version) and I'd appreciate any input and contributions you might have. -- Ckatz chat spy 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, I would like to request that Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik be merge into Maging Sino Ka Man since Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik is season 2 of Maging Sino Ka Man. Thanks! -chris^_^ ( talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I noted that the above portal page has recently been turned into a redirect to the main article. Can anyone tell me why this was done, and/or whether you believe that the old portal should be restored? Thank you. John Carter ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I've stumbled across the merge discussion of several character articles related to Scrubs (TV series) (which can be found here) and something User:TTN wrote made me think about guidance for writing about television characters. The discussion included commentary on the appropriate length of plot related sections in character articles. Apparently the relevant guidelines are WP:WAF/ WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. However, while these guidelines imply limitations of the length of plot they are non-specific. Our guidance on episode coverage is very specific about using roughly 10 words per minute of screen time. Can we work together to come up with similar guidance for television articles about characters?-- Opark 77 ( talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that the list of TV articles up for deletion has been updated. Several of the current nominations are ones I made as part of the on going effort to clean up some of our TV articles and get rid of the fancrufty articles that do not add value to our articles. I think it would be good to get some comments on these nominations from more TV Project as most of the voting appear to be coming from the article fans and a few regular AfD voters. Not asking for a specific vote, but would like more input from other folks "in the trenches" so to speak who actually deal with TV articles on a regular basis. :) AnmaFinotera ( talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i recently noticed this wikiproject and i was looking at some of the taskforces/projects associated to it. I was wondering what the process is to creating a taskforce as i am interested in creating one for Scrubs. Eddie6705 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am Alejandro Roggio from the Pro Wrestling WikiProject. I am here to ask of you if the articles about pro wrestling pay per view events should be part of your WikiProject. I thought they were, but none of them have WikiProject Television notices on their talk pages. Please reply, Lex T/ C Guest Book 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of pro wrestling PPVs, but here are the best written articles
FA:
FAC:
GA:
GAN:
Lex T/ C Guest Book 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ed g2s ( talk · contribs) is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of television screenshots to identify a series or article in an infobox, per his argument they should be used for critical commentary and not for identification. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller ( talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A group of IPs has been adding new episode information to Lloyd in Space since August. I just undid the whole thing and was reverted by an IP. I don't want to get in an edit war with these people so I thought I would let you guys handle it. DCEdwards1966 ( talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold — Notes left on
talk page.
Nehrams2020 (
talk)
06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As I'm sure many of you have noticed, there has been a big surge in the removal of articles about individual episodes of TV shows recently. It's sparked a dispute over the guideline that was used as justification for this. The discussion is going on over at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, I figure since this is likely of significant importance to this Wikiproject I should drop a note here to let you know. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Needs revision and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Acceptable direction for WP:FICT guideline. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe "every last episode of every last television article every created should have its own article" nor do I believe that any article should contain "a blow by blow of the plot and silly trivia notes." Nevertheless, I do think there has been a movement to be overly harsh on articles about elements of fiction and to rigidly interpret/apply "rules". I do not necessarily believe that 98% of episode and character articles need to be nuked immediately, either. I think WP:EPISODE has some legitimate problems and drifts into the realm of instruction creep. Combine that with the way "some people have been handling the situation" lately, and you have an explanation for the boil over instead of blow over situation we find ourselves in now. I am working on an essay detailing this issue and would covet other editors contributions and improvements. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)