Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Discussion at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Episodes need to be listed in order of air dates

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Loud House episodes#Episodes need to be listed in order of air dates. This discussion is concerning the removal of Director, Writer and Storyboard columns at an article, and the validity of the already-performed edit. This post alerts all editors watching this page to the discussion, not just the ones that have been personally requested. -- Alex^TW 06:51, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International DMB Advancement Group

The article International DMB Advancement Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is more like an advert then an actual articke, it also relies on a single source

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. BSOleader (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaley Ronayne

Is this redirect Kaley Ronayne (IMDB: [1]) meh, good enough, or mostly unhelpful? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I despise redirecting actor names to a single piece of their work. They're actors, they have multiple pieces of work, it's their living so this makes no sense. I typically list these under TFD and see where it goes from there. -- Alex^TW 15:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr TheWhovian. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Name's just Alex. And that's just my personal opinion, not the consensus of the WikiProject; others may, and more than likely will, have different opinions. -- Alex^TW 16:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But I liked your opinion, so I followed it (after some trial and error). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani television

Hi! Please work on this too, Thanks! (Notifying Mar4d) M. Billoo 05:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: The parameters for that project would go on Template:WikiProject Pakistan. Let's take the discussion there. Mar4d (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Parodies of..." categories, nominated for deletion

1. Category:Parodies of Sarah Palin nominated for deletion at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_19#Parodies_of_Sarah_Palin
2. Category:Parodies of Donald Trump nominated for deletion at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_20#Parodies_of_Donald_Trump

Sagecandor (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Screener (website)#Requested move (June 15, 2017)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Screener (website)#Requested move (June 15, 2017). This affects WP:TV directly, as we use Screener/Zap2It alot in referencing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in book article

RfC about the author credits of first edition in first sentence in a book article, pitched as a Television series to Hollywood.

Please see Request for Comment, at Talk:Trump_Tower:_A_Novel#RfC_about_the_author_credits_of_first_edition_in_first_sentence. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Episode coverage task force" and "season" articles

Question: So any "season" article that includes an episodes list should be tagged with the episode-coverage=Yes in the {{WikiProject Television}} banner on the Talk page, yes? That seems to be what Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force is saying. Yet I just noticed that a lot of "season" articles – e.g. Talk:Pretty Little Liars (season 7) or Talk:Game of Thrones (season 5) – are missing this. So am I correct in assuming that the episode-coverage=Yes should be added to the WP TV banner at these pages?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Just now seeing this, but I would offer that any TV pages with summaries of episodes (even "List of..." pages) should most definitely have the EC talkpage parameter. Or, any TV pages with a Reception section should have the included parameter for that is what is being discussed. Usually the parameter gets overlooked in the haste to add the WPTV template and its classes. — Wyliepedia 21:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump

RfC about inclusion of films in Bibliography of Donald Trump:

Discussion at Talk:Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump#RfC_about_inclusion_of_films_in_Bibliography_of_Donald_Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Be Cool Scooby-Doo!

Hi, quick question here. On Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!, there has been significant trouble recently regarding editors adding unsourced information, due to some of the second season episodes airing first in other countries such as India and Australia. In the past, I know generally on other Scooby-Doo related articles that it's been decided upon to wait until the US release to add details such as the episode summary, air dates, director/writer credits, etc. I was wondering if not including information regarding airings in other countries (for US shows) was actually a general policy/guideline, or if there is a better way that this is usually handled. Thank you, and any help is greatly appreciated! Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If U.S. is the agreed upon release date, then stick with that for the broadcast or release dates. Footnotes can be added per episodes for the first international release with references. You can see how we've done that for List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes with regards to first international broadcast (Korea) and first English broadcast. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: I like that idea, though I'm a bit worried that that's going to invite people to add "and it aired this date in Brazil and this date in India and this date in New Zealand..." Unfortunately, this is a bit of a difficult article due to the network (Cartoon Network) essentially now condemning the rest of the series to a Video on demand type app, so it's unknown when the episodes will air in the US. So far, all the international dates which have been added have been backed up only by other users' personal assertions such as "I live in (whatever country) and I know it aired!" I can't seem to find any source for any international airing except Britain, and even those sources show conflicting information (such as different multiple different air dates for the same episode). Not opposed to your idea, though I think it could be a bit challenging (hopefully you see/understand my point above). Thanks in advance, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Has season 2 been released on VOD then? You can then just list the VOD release date, even if it's all at the same time as with Netflix / Hulu / Amazon. If it gets a proper U.S. broadcast then you can stick to those and make some notes in the section that episodes were released on VOD / Internationally as early as whatever date that was. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't know when it will either. The gray area with this particular series is that (from what I understand) the show's ratings were much poorer than Cartoon Network expected, but the entire second season had already been made and sent to them, so they dumped it off on VOD and never will give the second season a proper television airing in the US, despite they're airing it on their sister station, Boomerang, in other countries. Since it will only be exclusively on VOD, it's a bit tougher to determine when it will actually be available (as I doubt Cartoon Network is in a rush to add it to VOD with such low ratings). Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else have any thoughts on how to deal with this? Essentially the series will be airing on regular networks in other countries, though it will not receive a proper airing in the US and will be exclusively aired on a video on demand-esque service per this. At this point, I'm basically just wondering what the general procedure would be for documenting the international dates (with proper sourcing, of course) or if it's necessary to document them at all since it is a US series. Thanks again! Courtesy ping again for @AngusWOOF: as he was involved in previous discussion. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1

Hello, members. I created Wikipedia:Featured article review/Firefly (TV series)/archive1 regarding the FA status of Firefly (TV series). Those interested are welcome to join the review and/or improve the article. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Now the article is a candidate to become a former Featured Article with a broken star icon. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Orange Is the New Black episodes#Featured character parameter in episode tables

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Orange Is the New Black episodes#Featured character parameter in episode tables. This discussion concerns the inclusion of in-universe information outside of the summary parameter, in the main row for the episode and its details. -- Alex^TW 01:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Netflix

Template:Netflix has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1) — featured article candidate

Hello! I have nominated the article about True Detective's first season as a featured article candidate. Feedback and comments would be greatly appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/True Detective (season 1)/archive5. Thank you for your time and consideration. DAP 💅 5:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Creating episode articles before its aired

The consensus for creating episode articles is to wait until the episode has aired, correct? There's an article at Dragonstone (Game of Thrones) with minimal content (lead and infobox), and two editors edit-warring to keep the article as an article, instead of redirecting it to the season page (while keeping the content hidden) until it's aired, ignoring what I have stated about the consensus. Opinions? -- Alex^TW 12:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can meet notability guidelines for an episode before it airs, then it is completely fine to have an article on it. The reason normally to avoid such articles is that prior to airing it is impossible to determine notability (though a Game of Thrones ep would clearly have that regardless) and that there might be a change in broadcast that delays the ep. But if you can talk about production, writing, casting, etc. prior to airing, you can make an article. Now, "Dragonstone" clearly fails that, so it should be redirected until the ep airs or more can be said. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for that. I thought so. With that reply, I'd redirect the article back, but I know I'd be reverted, so perhaps I'll wait. -- Alex^TW 23:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Roswell (TV series) help needed...

OK, who here is a fan of Roswell?! Come on, I know we have some "Roswellians" here!...

Anyway, in all seriousness, this article could use some work. The biggest issue is that the article's 'Plot' section is way too long. (It's also in the wrong place in the article, as per MOS:TV, but I've left it where it is for now, until we can come up with what needs to be done at this article...) I think the most obvious solution would be to use the over-long plot section to create Roswell (season 1), Roswell (season 2), and Roswell (season 3) articles based on the current writeups (and then trim them once transferred to the season-specific articles as per WP:TVPLOT, though the latter seems to present a problem as it says a "season plot summary" or an episodes table (e.g. List of Roswell episodes), but not both...).

Anyway, long-story short, I was hoping to brainstorm for some ideas here, before trying anything drastic at Roswell (TV series). Comments or suggestions are welcome. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

List of directors on infobox television

There is currently a pending revision at Rick and Morty. The IP user has added a list of directors to the infobox. Are there are any guidelines about the number of directors that can be listed or something? For example, i see that there are no directors listed at The Simpsons and Family Guy. -- Radiphus 01:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Outside of main "cast", I thought there was an "informal" rule to cap lists like these in infoboxes at TV series at about 5 or 6 entries. However, in this case, I don't think listing directors in the infobox is necessary at all – the directors are all clearly listed at List of Rick and Morty episodes. So I don't think they need to be listed in the infobox at the parent TV series article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the general rule of thumb is five. That applies to a lot of things on Wikipedia, like the minimum number of links for a navbox. Obviously, the number really depends on circumstances. The IP had not used {{plainlist}} so the list of directors was inconsistent with the rest of the infobox and took up a lot more room than it should. I've fixed that, but the infobox still extends down into the prose, especially since it includes additional text, like "(supervising; season 1-2)". On my screen that means the list takes up 13 lines. I'd support removing the list and adding it to the prose if necessary although, since the directors are all included in the episode lists, there's really no need to include them at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

List of Lip Sync Battle episodes

As noted, the episode designated 3x16 Zendaya vs Tom Holland didn't actually air on the SPIKE network, it aired on MTV on May 7th as promo for Spider-Man: Homecoming. According to official SPIKE page the episode is actually episode 3x22 and didn't air on their channel until July 5th. I feel the episodes should be numbered and ordered based SPIKE site with a note saying that episode aired earlier on MTV but as it would require renumbering several episodes I thought an opinion should be gathered before making what I consider a significant change. 58.7.46.143 (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Eyes Needed on The Emperor: Owner of the Mask

Looks like some significant edit warring and possible socking going on there. Extra eyes would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dragonstone (Game of Thrones)#Requested move 17 July 2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dragonstone (Game of Thrones)#Requested move 17 July 2017. -- Alex^TW 13:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of "additional voices" in voice actor articles

Please come participate in the discussion at WT:ANIME#Inclusion of additional voices in anime voice actor articles. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Elijah Daniel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elijah Daniel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVINTL discussion reminder

Hi all. Just reminding that we still have an open discussion regarding updating or changing the text in the MOS for WP:TVINTL (slightly forgot about it myself). Please add your opinions on potential changes, as this is one of the sections we generally have a lot of discussions about. The discussion again can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Red links in infoboxes

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

disruptive edits of The Originals (TV series)

I could use some help at The Originals (TV series) where an IP editor keeps introducing a new main cast member in contravention of MOS:TVCAST and also screwing up the entries for two other main cast members. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving "present" in the infobox as a series' end date

The opinions of a few contributors to television series would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Class (2016 TV series)#Ratings and future; an editor has found themselves confused over the idea of leaving "present" in the infobox as a series' end date until it is officially cancelled, rather than only adding "present" if it's been officially renewed. -- Alex^TW 12:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Lego Ninjago group deletion?

Hi! A discussion as to what should be done with a group of Lego Ninjago-related articles is going on at Talk:Lego Ninjago#Lego Ninjago group deletion?. If you can, please check out the discussion and let me know what you think there. Thanks! Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Any reason not to have a episode list and summary article for a show that only had one season?

This Talk:Earth_2_(TV_series)#Merging_List_of_Earth_2_episodes_to_here merge discussion has one editor claiming "It's common WP:TV practice to not have list of episode articles for one-season TV series", and if I didn't believe him to ask here. He is attempting to eliminate an article created in 2006, and merging its content over to the main article despite the size. Does this regularly happen now, was there anything written about it in any guideline pages, and is there is any reason to do this? Wouldn't it all depend on the size of the content? Dream Focus 07:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. For a one-season series, there is typically not enough content to move away - one episode table does not suffice as sufficient content, as yes, it would depend on the size of the content, but the readable prose in one table is typically very minimal. The consensus is that series with one seasons (either concluded or currently airing) have their episode table residing on the parent article, and only once it's been renewed for two or more seasons, then it gets split away. This is due to the fact that the article would become unwieldy to navigate with multiple tables, but with one table, it's perfectly readable. Hope that helps. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 08:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Also, looking at Earth 2, the readable prose that is already there is barely 6kb large. For rationale to split an article, you're really looking between 45 and 60kb, so you're no where near that. It would be more appropriate to house the LoE page on the parent article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Also in agreement with Alex and Bignole, per all they stated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Disney Channel edit request

Hello. There is an edit request over at Talk: List of programs broadcast by Disney Channel that could use a review. Thank you to whoever responds. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Done I was a bit blunt but the editor is all over the place and it isn't really clear to anyone from outside the discussion as to what he actually wants. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for input on infobox field usage

What exactly does the "sister channels" parameter on the Infobox for a television channel mean? Should it be only tightly-related channels, or is it any channel that is owned by the same corporate parent, which can be a quite extensive list? I opened a discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_television_channel#What exactly is the_intent of the_.22sister channels.22 parameter.3F. I have my own opinion there, but having gotten reverted on this before, I want to get a sanity check / third opinion before continuing to try to make my preferred change. (I prefer the "tighter" definition of sister channel.) SnowFire (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice: DVD release dates as air dates discussion

I have started a discussion about the use of English DVD release dates as a substitute for English air dates at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Another issue with DVD release dates as air dates do to an issue that has cropped up on the Naruto: Shippuden episode lists. To summaries, an IP is inserting DVD release dates onto the lists as English air dates because the series stop airing on television midway through its original run. The last episode that was broadcast was episode 312, which aired on the linear Internet television service Neon Alley on September 26, 2015 before the service shutdown. All episodes afterward that point are only available in DVD box sets. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cast Pictures

I searched the archives, so if this has been covered, forgive me. Please look at the article for The Expanse (TV series). There is a gallery of cast photographs. There are a few other articles which also show cast member photos, however it does not appear to be the norm. What is the opinion of the community on including pictures of cast members in a show's article? --dashiellx (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Can they be integrated better as with Supernatural (U.S. TV series)? It might be okay as with Friends or Seinfeld. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this a new-ish trend as more free celeb images have become available thanks to Wikipedia-friendly photographers, and I like it. I agree that the Supernatural approach is much more visually appealing than a gallery, but in the case of The Expanse, the article is not as robust so that approach wouldn't work as well. A larger number of extended cast member photos would also be better in lists of characters than the main article (List of Game of Thrones characters), but we don't always have those either.— TAnthony^Talk 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Lego Ninjago

If you have a moment, please take a look at Talk:Lego Ninjago#Lego Ninjago group deletion? to see if you have a comment regarding the TV-related articles named in that discussion (Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu, List of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu episodes, and on the side List of Lego Ninjago characters). --Izno (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

X Factor (denmark season 11)

X Factor (denmark season 11) has been nominated for deletion. The discussion may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Paynes to debut in 2018

The Paynes seems a bit WP:TOOSOON to me, given that it isn't scheduled to air until sometime next year. Thoughts? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's borderline as per WP:TVSHOW – it has been scheduled for airing by a television network, but with only an approximate premiere date (i.e. a year, not a specific date). My bigger issue is that the article is insufficiently sourced (e.g. none of the casting is sourced) currently. I think if this was adequately sourced, I'd be inclined to let it slide as generally meeting WP:TVSHOW. But, right now, the article is a little undersourced for Mainspace... I suggest moving it to Draftspace until it is adequately sourced and/or a specific series premiere date is announced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Names of one-episode actors discussed at Talk:Firefly (TV series)

I started the discussion at Talk:Firefly (TV series) about reinserting names of one-episode actors. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I note that you did not link the original discussion at all here. Please keep discussions to one location. For editors who wish to give their opinion, you will find an already existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Guest actors' names. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 06:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Firefly (TV series). --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox television - website field

Some time ago {{Infobox television}} was modified so that it would automatically pull a program's website from Wikidata if it existed there. This means that, generally, it is not necessary to use the website field in the infobox. I have just modified the infobox so that, in the case where a program's website is on Wikidata but is no longer valid (for example if the series has ended), adding |website=hide will suppress the website. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue, as the website information is appearing under the "Release" section of the infobox as opposed to its own "External links" section (as it previously did). Compare Preacher (TV series), which is automatically pulling the website data, to Westworld (TV series), which is still using the "website" parameter. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend and Drovethrughosts: Something needs to be adjusted to the |header48= if statement in the infobox code to still appear if the website is being pulled from Wikidata and the field is not being used. I'm not familiar enough with Wikidata to know what the condition would be to simply see if the information exists to suggest how to fix it. But that's the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have reverted the edit for the time being, as when the URL is pulled from Wikidata, it is displayed in a block line, forcing the infobox to stretch to unwieldy widths. -- Alex^TW 02:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I know the header issue. Would {{#if:{{{website|}}}{{{production_website|}}}|External links}} for |header48= need to become {{#if:{{{website|{{#property:P856}}}}}{{{production_website|{{#property:P856}}}}}|External links}}? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I can't see how the change I made did that as it just added the "hide" option. The rest of the code is essentially the same as the code that was added in March 2016,[2] and modified in May this year.[3] It's just differently formatted. It's not even my code, it has been used in another infobox for ages. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but as soon as I reverted it, the layout fixed itself. -- Alex^TW 06:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: What article(s) did you see this problem in?

@Favre1fan93: That's almost the fix. {{#property:P856}} doesn't need to be used for production_website as it doesn't use Wikidata. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Daredevil (TV series) (after an editor tried to shorten the URL), and Preacher (TV series) (after I removed the website parameter to use Wikidata). Sorry, just realized that that means I had it the wrong way - when the URL was added through the parameter, rather than pulled from Wikidata, it was displayed in a block line. -- Alex^TW 06:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If that was the case then it's more likely due to the May 2017 edit. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but when I reverted just your recent edit and purged the articles, it was fixed. -- Alex^TW 06:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as Daredevil is concerned, Wikidata seems to have two urls, a marvel.com url and a netflix one as well. Or rather, it did. I've removed the second. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Introduction of the use of Wikidata in March last year caused the missing header problem. Partially implementing Favre1fan93's suggestion fixed that but caused the header to appear when |website=hide was used. I've fixed that and tested it at both Daredevil (TV series) and Preacher (TV series). I've also tested it on a number of other articles and it seems OK. Obviously, ifit appears at other articles please let me know. Some of the fixes require changes at Wikidata (Daredevil was such a case), not the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)"

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Television channels, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 08:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Bold edit in the Rick and Morty ratings template

Recently, all those rating graphs were suggested for deletion, but no consensus could be reached. Users who voted for deletion, raised the issue that the templates were not sourced. I believe that this issue has not been addressed so far. I tried something as an example on Rick and Morty. Here is the edit i've made to the template (i used the ref names for each episode's viewership - for example, S01E01 ref name is "Pucci 2013-12-10") and here is the edit i've made to the "list of episodes" article (mouse-over the "Nielsen Media Research" reference). This works as far as the ratings graph is being used in a "list of episodes" article, where every viewership reference is being transcluded from the season articles. What do you think? -- Radiphus 03:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What am I missing? I see sources, but I don't see referencing attached to each ratings figure in the table. That is what you need for this to pass WP:V... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources are not inside the graph's table, they are listed in the "Nielsen Media Research" reference, below the table (you can see them in the "list of episodes" article when you mouse-over the ref). -- Radiphus 05:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that the referencing needs to be with the figure inside the table. If that is not possible because this is in template format, then this further butresses my point that these shouldn't be done as templates in the first place... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, i am not 100% convinced that the ratings need to be re-sourced. For example, where are the sources in band timeline graphs? I am only asking whether what i did is an improvement or not. (paging AlexTheWhovian and Brojam). -- Radiphus 06:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I still don't believe in the use of the templates, but while they are around, not every figure needs sourcing; if a single source is available that supports all of the ratings, then that is acceptable. See usages of {{Series overview}} and {{Television season ratings}} where one source is used to source the whole row. Same thing for {{Episode list}} - you only need the one source in the row to source the credits, not a source for every cell. -- Alex^TW 06:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

What happens when there is no such source available (as i believe is the case in many/most tv shows)? -- Radiphus 07:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Then every figure needs to be sourced – that's my point: in the vast majority of cases for these, there will not be a single "table source" for all the ratings figures. Instead, each figure will need a separate reference for its ratings. This issue may be further complicated by the fact that the source for that referencing will probably already exist in the episode table on the page above. This is why I think using templates for these are a bad idea, as that will likely prevent using WP:REFNAME to facilitate referencing the ratings figures in multiple locations (e.g. in the episode table, and again in one of these ratings tables) at the LoE page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've self-reverted the edit, as I think the citation footnote in the "list of episodes" article was excessive. I believe there should be a discussion regarding whether the rating figures below the graph need to be cited in the first place and then come up with an efficient way to do it. -- Radiphus 12:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence of Family Guy

I've made a proposal to have "adult" removed from the opening sentence of Family Guy at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And after only the fourth post in a discussion that I started to discuss this. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC about a Filmography/Television credits section

RFC at "Talk:Carol Burnett" asking if Burnett's multiple appearances as a particular character in a TV show should be described in her Filmography-Television credits list as "Recurring" or as "Recurred. Shearonink (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Rounding of ratings figures

I began a discussion at Template talk:Episode list but upon suggestion, I'll relocate it here. It regards whether ratings figures have to be rounded (ie. 450,000 viewers be written as 0.45) in that template and similar ratings tables/templates:

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, but is there any formal policy on mandatory rounding of ratings figures to the nearest million? On smaller cable channels, lesser watched shows and in countries with relatively lower population (eg. Australia, New Zealand) many shows don't have any or many episodes above 1 million viewers. I don't see the point of rounding, like "0.326, 0.412 and 0.276" and should, in my view, be written in full in this template as "326,000, 412,000 and 276,000." This template's default header is "viewers (millions)" prompting some to always round to the million.

Is there any objection to adding a note somewhere that says rounding isn't necessary if all or almost all figures for a season/show aren't 7 figures? -- Whats new?^(talk) 11:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about previous discussions or anything, but I would think that a common sense approach is what's needed here: if all or most of the numbers are not in the millions, then we shouldn't force them into that format. As long as there is consistency within the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

A relevant discussion can be seen at Talk:List of Black Sails episodes § Viewers. -- Alex^TW 12:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: That discussion is a good example of why I bring this point up. There's a range of views on it, and thought I'd gauge interest on having a guideline for general practice. I agree rounding 7 figures to the million (ie. 1.87 million) is good, but I don't think a show with half a million viewers should be rounded to either 0.50 million or 0.500 thousand - just 500,000 in full. -- Whats new?^(talk) 12:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's possible. What I did for an Australian series that didn't gather high ratings is exactly that - see Tomorrow When the War Began. If we're working on guidelines for ratings, another that we need is whether we use two or three decimal places as well; there's been a fair bit of discussion and disagreement on that as well. -- Alex^TW 12:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Most Australian shows don't cross the million mark anymore which is a large part of why I bring this topic up, in addition to some U.S. cable series. On the decimal places for million plus shows, I tend to think three if available, but perhaps that issue can be discussed here as well -- Whats new?^(talk) 12:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

My $0.02 on this is, because of how ratings figures are generated, it is generally unwise to report viewership figures to more than 3 significant figures (e.g. 5.36 million, or 0.536 million). I just don't think ratings figures have the precision to report past 3 sig fig's (and 2 sig fig's is probably more realistic). Beyond that, I don't have many opinions on the subject, and it doesn't matter much to me if it's reported as "0.536 million" or "536,000"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

On how many figures, I don't think its about precision or not, its about what can be sourced. If you can cite that 1,736,937 viewers watched a show then fine, but almost all ratings are rounded to the nearest thousand (as 1,737,000) so I think 1.737 is fair. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

If/when someone like Nielsen reports a number like "1,736,937 viewers", it's virtually a fabrication – their methodology simply doesn't allow for that level of precision, and even if someone like Variety re-reports such a figure, we should not simply report that unfiltered. In a case like this, reporting "1.74 million viewers" is a reasonable exercise of editorial discretion IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view on how many significant figures or decimal places to include. I don't see an issue with "1.737" or "1.74" as long as its consistent. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever it is—it doesn't even have to be anything strictly on Wikipedia, so it can be anything—consistency is key, definitely. In the case of Wikipedia, I don't believe it has to be consistent globally, but it should be consistent within an article. What I've personally noticed is that we use two decimal places for general television series and one decimal place on "list of [network] movies" articles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A case in point is an IP user who is insisting on rounding by thousands, which apart from being highly unusual, in my view looks confusing and unnatural. See diffs [4] [5] -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That is just a confusing mess, I agree. When you have the standard millions, using the numbers from Swedish Dicks, it's much more understandable to have 0.13 and 0.09, but when you alter the column to use the thousands for series that never hit the millions, and you just write 127 and 87, it's not quite as clear, and to some people, it could come across as one-hundred twenty-seven and eighty-seven even with the word thousands in the column header. I would either have 127,000 and 87,000 or 1.27 and 0.87 if we want to keep the column compact, the latter being exactly the way we write the numbers when they're in the millions, the only difference being that, in this case, it's 1.27 thousand and 0.87 thousand, not 1.27 million and 0.87 million. We don't write 1,734 for the millions in the episode tables—similar to what I said above, that could incorrectly come across as one-thousand seven-hundred thirty-four to some people—we write 1.73, so we shouldn't write 127 or whatever for the thousands, either. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

List of Wentworth episodes hasn't seemed to have any issues with using thousands. -- Alex^TW 03:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hadn't seen Wentworth before, but I'm very opposed to it. It very much seems the exception. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, to my mind, if you're going to do "thousands", then do "729,000" in the table not "729" [× one thousand]... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That's my preference, and frankly what I've experienced to be common practice. "2.84" under a "Viewers (million)" table header or "729,000" under a "Viewers" header. Just seeking opinion, given some IPs arguing its not or alternate views -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ratings sites almost always report ratings in millions to a precision of three digits after the decimal point. I think two digits is fine (though maybe I'd go for three significant figures, so we'd get three digits after the decimal point if it's less than 1 million, and just one if it's 10 million or more). Using figures like "729,000" might imply additional precision when there isn't any. But either way, I would definitely not want to use something in between, like "Viewers (thousands)" and "729". nyuszika7h (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, this is not the main subject of the discussion here, but while we're at it, I would recommend the usage of rounding templates ({{decimals}} or {{sigfig}}, depending on what we agree on), which is less error-prone and easier to check than users manually rounding the values. This could even be integrated into the {{Episode list}} template, so you'd just enter |Viewers=1.234 and it would be automatically rounded to 1.23, although if the consensus is not to always use millions, it would have to take care of that, and even if we agree to use millions everywhere, we should make sure it doesn't break existing pages which use a different convention – it should put them into a tracking category instead. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Some ratings sites may report in millions, but not necessarily outside America, and the ones that do may only report the most watched shows which in most countries would be over one million. For those countries/channels/shows where no episode of the season/series ever rates above one million, it seems completely pointless to round up to a number it never reached (or is highly unlikely to reach in the case of ongoing shows). My proposal would be if an episode of a series/season rates 7+ digits (ie. over 1 million) then all figures are rounded to X.XX million - where no episodes get that high the format should be XXX,000 (as opposed to 0.XXX). Not too fussed on 2 or 3 decimals in million-plus figures but it seems most prefer 2 places. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of spoilers in the cast section of Westworld

RfC on Potential Spoilers, by Nihlus Kryik: "Should information revealed to the viewer throughout the series (such as major plot points and reveals) be contained in the Cast and characters section of the article?" -- Radiphus 13:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

"ST"

I found this contextless draft article, DRAFT:ST, but I can't seem to figure out what this is about. If someone knows, please rename this draft to something sensible. -- 67.70.35.17 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking!

I can't figure out what the draft is about, and it seems that no-one else can, either, which is why the draft is up for deletion.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 01:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I searched for several of the episode titles but couldn't find anything to link the results. The draft was created by an anonymous editor on one day in February, edited once, two days later and then never touched again which is why I nominated it for deletion. The same editor added unsourced episodes to 3 other articles so I'd say he was just playing. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

TV.com as a source

I just wanted some clarification but are we removing TV.com sourcing from wiki articles? I am pretty sure it's been deemed unreliable in the past. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It most definitely is unreliable. Any tv.com content should be limited to external links. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Why would we link it as an external link if it's not reliable in the first place? -- Alex^TW 12:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was considering removing the source on the Arrow credit for Michael Dorn. Govvy (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Unreliable sources (not just tv.com) can be used in the external links section. Tv.com has a number of templates specifically for this purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this needs to be visited... If they're not valid enough to be used in the article's body, then how are they valid enough to be used as an external link? Both sources and external links support an article. -- Alex^TW 12:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume AussieLegend is referring to the use of {{Tv.com show}} and related templates. As you know, other websites considered unreliable sources are often used as external links in this manner, like IMDb and certain franchise-specific wikis. It think this is a great practice to lead readers to external sources of detail and trivia we don't allow here.— TAnthony^Talk 14:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

What TAnthony said – there are a number of "sources" that are unsuitable for inline sourcing, but which are perfectly acceptable as 'External links', among them Find a Grave, IMDb, TV.com, and Epguides. And all for pretty much the same reason: WP:USERGENERATED sites with some, but insufficient for Wikipedia purposes, editorial control over submissions. It would be a huge mistake to disallow the use of such sites as 'External links'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The only RS parts that TV.com can be used for are the staff articles published by CNET / CBS Interactive. But the tv.com template could be listed in External links. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry... where was it discussed it was unreliable? I'm not disagreeing... I just have no clue why it's unreliable based on this discussion (which is the first I've heard of it). —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

IJBall has clarified enough why there is a difference between what we use to cite, and what we just simply link to for further information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Tv.com has been discussed at so many pages that we didn't even bother putting it in WP:TVFAQ because the outcome of all the discussions was the same.[6] Most of tv.com is user generated, so WP:USERG applies. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Edits I Can't Fix Because the Page is Locked

• In the second Judge Cuts chart: "This was also the only Judge Cuts episode in the season in which an act receiver 4 red buzzers, and were eliminated immediately." Please add the period at the end of the sentence.
• In the third Judge Cuts chart, Final Draft is still listed as "Eliminated" instead of "Quarterfinal Wild Card." However, the group received a Quarterfinals Wild Card, accoding to the sneak peek in the latest AGT episode.
• In the second Quarterfinal chart, Evie Clair's background for the Dunkin' Save is a different shade of red, as opposed to the key and the first chart.

Can someone please fix these errors? I can't because the page is locked. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.88.180.63 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the first and third items above in America's Got Talent (season 12). I'm hesitant to make the 2nd change since it appears to reflect an episode that has yet to air, and the content of this "sneak peak" may be up for interpretation. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ulch. Am I the only one that really dislikes these kinds of articles? We're a general encyclopedia. Why are we going into the details such as who "won" which episode?! That belongs at the wikias, not here. But it seems to be a perennial "thing" at the various reality TV articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Question: 7/26/17 UTC

Can you delete Capri Gourmet? it has nothing to do with the Retecapri channel.87.10.78.96 (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking!

It seems that the Capri Gourmet page formerly redirected to Cine Sony (Italy); however, there was a discussion requesting that it instead redirect to Retecapri, which it now does since the proposal was uniformly supported by all participants in it. (The discussion can be seen here.) This means that your proposal may be contested; however, if you still want to delete it, you can propose deletion. Just remember to ask the participants in the original discussion and to link the original discussion (Talk:Retecapri#Requested move 16 August 2017) to make sure that you don't look like you're trying to circumvent the original discussion.

If you want to delete the Capri Gourmet page, I suggest that you post it at WP:RFD. If you do want to post it there, be sure to carefully read the instructions there before posting, as it is a somewhat difficult process. Also, like I said, please notify the participants in the original discussion (possibly using the Ping or Talkback templates) and please link the relevant move discussion (Talk:Retecapri#Requested move 16 August 2017). If you want, I can post it there for you.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks!

Noah Kastin (talk) (🖋) 04:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Questions about episode table summaries

1. Should the short summaries in episode tables use paragraphs to distinguish one scene from another in a different time or place?
2. Is it ok to mention actors guest staring in a single episode of a show in that episode's summary in the episode table, when there is no "cast" and/or "guest cast" section in the article?
3. When should the horizontal rule be used in the short summary? Is it ok to use it before a "post credit scene" or would a simple line break be more preferable?

All those questions concern the Rick and Morty season 1, season 2 and season 3 episode tables. See for example, the s02e03 summary. -- Radiphus 11:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Realistically, episode summaries should ~200 words, so any paragraph breaks would be unnecessary.
2. There's a couple discussions about this recently at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. I personally think it's a case-by-case basis. For example, for the new analogy series Room 104 its actors are mentioned in the episode summaries because there's simply no other more logical way to display the information.
3. I've seen both used. A simple line break is suffice; the horizontal line looks nice, but I don't think it really improve readability (if that's the purpose for it).

Just some of my thoughts. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It bothers me when there are no specific guidelines on such matters. -- Radiphus 15:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Radiphus: I'd advise being careful with the use of horizontal rule lines – I've seen plenty of cases where there really was no justification for their use. In general, I think listing double episodes as "110–111" is preferable to using a horizontal rule line in most cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Except when it comes to the HTML ID attribute of the cell for the episode number. Using "1–2" will provide a malformed anchor of "#ep1.E2.80.932", whereas "1<hr />2" will provide an anchor of "#ep1", as the episode table code is designed to provide this. You can use the Inspect Element feature of your browser to confirm this. Same holds with the Production Code cells. -- Alex^TW 16:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Tabloid objections to The State -- should the texts be cited ?

Further input would be useful at Talk:The_State_(2017_TV_series)#Tabloid objections to The State.

User:MapReader is of the view that, as far as possible, sites like the Daily Mail should never be cited. My view is that if we are reporting a major tabloid fuss about a series in the "Response" section of an article (and, in the UK at least, they can be very significant opinion-formers), then it is helpful to our readers to give citations to the actual texts.

(Compare diff: -- with detailed citations, without).

Wider views would be useful, on the article talk page. Jheald (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

TBF I was simply trying to apply the consensus from the recent RfC, which appears unambiguous and emphatical in advising editors not to include citations from tabloids such as the DM in articles. User:Jheald appears to attribute a personal view to me which isn't relevant here. The issue concerns already agreed WP policy. MapReader (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Query on naming of Four Corners TV programs

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Query on naming of Four Corners TV programs. Interested in soliciting others' opinions on this one. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move - List of Vikings characters

There is a proposal at Talk:List of Vikings characters#Requested move 31 August 2017 proposing that the article be moved to List of Vikings (TV series) characters. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Template: Vikings

The use and topic and naming of {{Vikings}} is under discussion, see template talk:Vikings -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Which lead image to use at the Alycia Debnam-Carey article?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Alycia Debnam-Carey#Which lead image to use?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

issue with someone having turned Region 1, Region 2, etc. into disambig pages

So... any idea what we should do about this edit and its related edits at all the region pages? As a result, all the TV pages (and I assume film pages) that include DVD release info are being updated to point to DVD region code but without anchors. So we're getting lots of identical overlinking to the same location in the same tables (see here).

I assume we need to get whoever runs RussBot to adjust its tasks? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Awards in plot summaries

TVBuff90 has been adding awards won by episodes in plot summaries. Here are some examples: [7], [8], [9]. I reverted two of those edits in articles that happened to be on my watchlist, but after checking their recent history i noticed they've done the same thing in quite a lot of articles. How should that be delt with? -- Radiphus 23:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

To me, the plot summary section is for plot. The season or episode article (if there is one) can list awards for specific episodes. Which is to say, I'd remove them and cite MOS:TVPLOT, specifically Avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, technical detail, as well as any information that belongs in other sections, such as actors' names.. Awards won is akin to a technical detail, I'd say. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, guys. I got carried away with Emmy-winning TV episodes. --TVBuff90 (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That's ok, i know it was in good faith. I am removing the information you added. Thank you for understanding that this is not personal. Update:  Done -- Radiphus 01:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Indian TV serials

Hey all, I haven't bugged ya in a while. Hope you're all doing well. Curious what to do about some Indian TV serials. They sometimes do a thing where different seasons have different casts, sometimes with time jumps (10 years, 25 years) in between. Should we consider each season a unique series, or should they all be incorporated under their main article? Some examples:

• Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? S1 & S2
• Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon 3
• Naagin (TV series) S1 & S2
• Naagin (Colors) S3

There had previously been a Naagin (season 2) article, but it was ultimately merged. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

And related, I've proposed a merge of Naagin (Colors) into the main Naagin article. If anyone has any thoughts about this, comments would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If we go by the precedent of how shows like The X-Files and Prison Break were handled (which, FTR, I don't like), then these should all be treated as the "same series", just with different "seasons". So Naagin (Colors) could be merged to the main article, or could be revised to be a "Naagin (season 3)"-type article, a la Prison Break (season 5)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

IMO, Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon 3 should be merged as well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I've opened a merge discussion at Talk:Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon? (2011 TV series)#Proposed merge with Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon 3 if you'd care to comment. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Inside Science

I see that the article Inside Science is within the scope of your WikiProject (Wikipedia: WikiProject Television). This does not make sense, as this programme is a radio programme, not a television programme. Vorbee (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed/changed to WP banner to WP:RADIO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Guest appearances on chat shows and similar

I'm pretty sure that we have a guideline about actor's guest appearances on chat shows (and similar), often being there only to plug their latest TV or film role. I can't find it - do we still have one? If we do, are these edits OK? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I don't think we have a "formal" guideline about this at WP:FILMOGRAPHY, but it has been general practice that only "notable" roles and such should be listed in Filmographies, and that generally should exclude talk show appearances (and I'd include stuff like "aftershows" – e.g. Talking Dead – in this as well) and non-notable short films, and definitely excludes uncredited roles that are unsourced. I've been meaning to write up an essay on this that I'm intending to call "NOTIMDB" (I've started on it, in my userspace), but I've gotten sidetracked by real world stuff lately, and so haven't gotten around to finishing it – but it will basically "formally" list this kind of thing out – e.g. what should, and what shouldn't, generally be listed in actor Filmographies... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There was a thread about removing variety shows and talk show appearances from filmographies that prompted the entries to be removed from a number of K-pop articles. But yes, they should be removed, and only mentioned in prose if it was something notable like Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

An even "bigger" example is Hugh Grant on The Tonight Show. But I agree that instances like this are rare, and even in these cases the appearances should be dealt with in the article's text, not in the Filmography. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: You wouldn't happen to have a link to a discussion handy, would you? (That might come in handy for the NOTIMDB essay I'm working on...) Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

New U.S. Weekly ratings archive list

I've always found it very difficult to locate historical weekly rating information (typically U.S. Nielsen ratings); I've compiled a list which could use expansion, but may be helpful. I hope editors will expand Wikipedia:List_of_US._television_ratings_archives.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Number of seasons/episodes on Wikidata

Hi, I drafted instructions for P2437 and P1113 wikidata properties. Discussions here and here. --Supernino (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Should JAG be part of the NCIS franchise?

An editor has reopened a discussion at Talk:NCIS (franchise) regarding whether JAG should be part of the NCIS franchise. Please comment as you see fit. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be the other way around?! – NCIS should be considered part of the "JAG franchise"! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If there was a JAG franchise, yes, but JAG only had one spin-off, if you could call it that. JAG was simply used as a convenient venue for NCIS' backdoor pilot. NCIS included all new characters that only appeared in JAG for the pilot. A couple of JAG characters did appear in a couple of NCIS episodes but that was it for several years until one JAG character was reprised for a couple of episodes of NCIS: Los Angeles. Even then, the character appeared in a different role to that from JAG. Prior to that, NCIS: Los Angeles had no relationship with JAG. NCIS: New Orleans still hasn't had any relationship with JAG. The franchise is therefore more correctly call the NCIS franchise. It's sort of like, all humans originated in Africa, but we're not all Africans. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.). Guidance needed on whether a subproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother can use naming conventions that supersede WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This has extended to a move discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother (U.S.)#Requested move 11 September 2017. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should details of personnel changes be moved from lead to main body of article?

Should details of personnel changes of a TV show be moved from the lead to the main body of the article and only use a summary in the lead? Discussion at Talk:The_Great_British_Bake_Off#RfC: Should details of personnel changes be moved from lead to main body of article? Hzh (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Black Mirror plot lengths

I am having a discussion here with Radiphus about the length of Black Mirror episodes' plot summaries in episode articles such as The National Anthem (Black Mirror). I believe that since Black Mirror is an anthology series so far from what most serialised television is like, the guideline WP:FILMPLOT applies – Black Mirror episodes are like short standalone films (no shared characters between episodes; nominated for some awards in television movie categories), so their plot sections should be subject to the 400–700 word guideline for films. In contrast, Radiphus has opined that the episodes should follow WP:TVPLOT (noting that most episodes are shorter than feature films), and be subject to a 400 word upper limit, and therefore tagged most episode pages with {{Long plot}}. Which, if either, guideline is appropriate? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that state that each installment is actually a film? Actually a film, not "like" a film. If not, then as Black Mirror is a television series as it states in its article, MOS:TV applies to it, and therefore WP:TVPLOT is the correct guideline. -- Alex^TW 14:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

From [10]:

“Black Mirror” is in a unique position at the Emmys. Unlike most current anthology series that tell a brand new story every season, “Black Mirror” tells a new story in each and every episode, much like “The Twilight Zone” did way back when. So when entering for consideration it didn’t submit as a drama series or as a limited series. Instead it broke down its season into individual episodes classified as stand-alone movies.

But to me, this isn't as important as common sense: correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume that the reason that FILMPLOT allows longer plots than TVPLOT would be that films tend to create whole worlds and characters from scratch, while television keeps the same characters and tone. There are exceptions, but surely you need more words to describe, say, X+Y (a film) than you would for an episode of Friends, because in the latter you can assume everyone knows the main cast and their personalities. Runtime is also a factor but Black Mirror episodes are 45–89 minutes long, and I'm more thinking about the longer episodes here. So I would say that this common sense justification is enough to invoke WP:IAR.

Anyway, if you want a reliable source, I should think the above counts. "Classified as stand-alone movies". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 22:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Does the scope of this Project still include character articles?

IJBall and I have discussed this issue a little bit here and here. He has rightfully pointed out that the project banner {{WP TV}} calls the Project "a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs." and does not mention characters or other elements. He also notes that character articles would fall clearly into the scope of WP:WikiProject Fictional characters, and many have other genre- or franchise-specific WikiProjects that apply.

However, "our" MOS has style guidelines for character articles at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Character article structure; we explicitly mention character articles on our main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Characters and fictional elements; and we actually list three character FAs there, which all are tagged to this Project. I should note that these FAs also each fall under another topic-specific WikiProject, in this case The Simpsons, Soap Operas, and Lost. It seems that WikiProject Fictional characters was only created in 2011 (and is largely inactive) and this Project predates that. Historically this Project has included character articles, but character articles have also multiplied exponentionally over the years (by the way, our main page also includes bio articles for people working in television, which I didn't realize until now). I bring this up now because IJBall has removed the TV banner from all of the Game of Thrones character articles. I don't see a need to exclude any TV-related article from this Project, even though we currently use it as a central hub of activity rather than the source of organized improvement efforts. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I should also add, the banner read "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia" until a Dec. 2016 edit which seems like a cleanup/technical update and not intentional rewording to clarify scope. The edit also reminded me that the Lost WikiProject is no longer active.— TAnthony^Talk 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Since characters are an integral part of TV programs I can't understand why they wouldn't fall under the scope of the project. WP:TV even includes a section titled "Characters and fictional elements" and gives three examples of character articles in addition to the guidelines in MOS:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, my point on this is that fictional characters already have their own WikiProject: WP:WikiProject Fictional characters, so we don't need to put fictional characters under the {{WP TV}} banner, especially in the case of something like Game of Thrones which also has a dedicated WikiProject of its own: WP:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire. Basically, in my estimation {{WP TV}} should only be applied to TV program articles themselves, and "season" and "List of [...] episodes" articles, etc. (And possibly TV network articles – though it appears that those are covered under WP:WPMEDIA – e.g. Talk:CBS which has {{WP Media}} but not {{WP TV}}...). The only place I'm uncertain about this is whether {{WP TV}} should be applied to "List of [...] characters" articles – I wouldn't be opposed to including those under WP:TV. But in my estimation, individual character should not be tagged with {{WP TV}}, esp. when they are covered under other WP's such as WP:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping any article appearing under more than one project banner. If an article is relevant to a particular WikiProject it should be tagged accordingly. We have {{WikiProject banner shell}} specifically so articles can be tagged by multiple projects. The instructions for {{WikiProject Television}} quite clearly say the banner to the talk page of every article within the scope of the project. That includes character articles. There's simply no reason not to tag them. Regarding Talk:CBS, it doesn't include the WP:TV banner because it includes the banner for WP:WikiProject Television/American television task force, which is a taskforce of WP:TV. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue there is – "WP banner project tag-bombing" pages is no different than "maintenance tag-bombing" articles. At some point, there gets to be a point of diminishing returns. But in the case of GoT, I see no net benefit of adding the WP:TV banner when there's already a dedicated WP "sub" group specifically dedicated to those articles. (The point about CBS opens up a whole separate can of worms – e.g. why use the WP:US banner there over the WP:TV banner, so I'll leave that one aside...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a member of both WP:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire and WP:WikiProject Soap Operas, and with all respect to my colleagues there, the smaller genre- and franchise-specific Projects tend to be a bit myopic and lack the oversight of a larger Project like this one. For example, soap-related articles have particular qualities and "needs" all to themselves, but over the years some of their accepted practices have pushed the boundaries of, or gone beyond, what we might find acceptable here. In any case, most articles fall under the scope of multiple Projects, I don't see any harm in overlapping coverage if it can help improve articles. Especially when WP:WikiProject Fictional characters is all but dead. This WikiProject did always include characters, but a lot has evolved over the years so it's good that we're discussing this.— TAnthony^Talk 18:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I was going to say something like TAnthony just did, though probably less gently. I've seen a lot of differences in opinion in how GOT articles should be written/constructed/organized between people who work on mainly those articles and people who work more broadly in TV "generally", and I suspect it is, as he implies, similar with other "genre- and franchise-specific" projects. I think for certain that TV character articles should/do fall under the TV project purview, especially given how people who edit them are likely to discover/encounter the TV season, program(me)/series/show (LOL), and episode articles and start editing those... and vice versa. And definitely anything we can do to help clean up "List of [...] characters" articles is going to be good because most of those I've seen are a mess and feel very much like many random inexperienced editors have been at them with no real regard for the hopefully high standards we strive for at Wikipedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes – I've come around on LoC articles, and don't have any problem with putting those under {{WP TV}}. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it goes back to what we think WikiProjects are actually doing to the articles they've claimed. We can certainly rely on, for example, ASOIAF and Soap opera Project members to expand and improve articles. And there are some great editors out there doing great work in this regard. But the TV Project is very organized and has established some great standards and practices which are constantly adapting and generally being improved. We haven't had a lot of specific focus on characters in our evolving discussions in recent months/years, but I think we should be involved in maintaining/managing/standardizing the content and format of TV character articles across all genres and shows as we do with our other types of articles, like episodes, seasons, and lists. Other large, organized genre Projects like WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Anime and manga, and WikiProject Film all include character articles for (I assume) this reason.— TAnthony^Talk 23:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it can be included. There are lots of LoC articles where the main media is the television show, so they could use some cleanup from this Wikiproject. There may be some conflicting formats for lists involving media other than television, like books, films, comics/manga, video games, but not a big deal. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How to handle a credit situation

Hi all. There is currently a discussion at the Designated Survivor (TV series) talk page about how to list one of the actors, who received starring credit for 13 of the 22 episode, but was listed as a guest star for the remainder of the season (and it appears going forward into season 2 as well). Looking for more comments from users to help us figure out the best way to note this and where to list the actor. The discussion is here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested at AfD

White Teeth (TV series) has been nominated for deletion for two weeks but without further comments the AfD has been relisted twice. Comments either way would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it went through. DonIago (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Syfy Shows template

I'm throwing this here because I have a feeling not many people watchlist Template:Syfy Shows, but, the template currently is titled "Syfy original programming". Con Man (web series) has been recently picked up and broadcast by Syfy, but the series released its first season on Vimeo and its second season on Comic-Con's subscription streaming service, i.e. it wasn't developed or produced for Syfy nor did it release originally with them. The series was recently added to the template, but seeing as the show didn't originate with Syfy, and the template states its for original Syfy programming, I wonder if it's really within the scope of the template? I'm not sure if there's precedent, or what. Pinging @Dave Rave:, who added the series to the template, to the discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It sounds to me like it's not "Syfy original programming" then, and is out-of-scope for the template. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

the original part did nag at my brain as it was going ...
bsg is on syfy but it's not a syfy production. Dave Rave (talk)

BSG is a Syfy production. But it was produced when the channel was called Sci-Fi, before the channel rebranded to Syfy. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Farscape ?
I think your List of programs broadcast by Syfy is being erroneously over titled to SyFy originals where SyFy is not the production comonay on more than one on the list.Dave Rave (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't understand that. Though, things like Farscape and Con Man (and Sliders, and Doctor Who and Stargate) is why I bring it up. What exactly is the scope of this template? Is it just programming that was originally broadcast on or developed for Syfy (BSG, Eureka, 12 Monkeys)? Where exactly do series that started on a different channel but were acquired by Syfy later fit in (so it includes, Stargate SG-1, Sliders, Con Man)? What about series that originated outside the United States and so their original channel is different, but Syfy (the first broadcaster in the States) apparently had a heavy hand in production and the renewal process (so it includes, Lost Girl??, Farscape?)? Or, is it a nav template for any show broadcast on the channel at any point in time? How do we usually handle these templates? Also, worth noting that Syfy doesn't actually seem to have a television production company (though it appears to have one for films), so I wouldn't expect to see them listed as a production company on any shows. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 06:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a list of shows on SyFY and it's been re-titled, checked History, was not created as orig programming..
And it's catch phrase is original programming, which is mis-leading.
And Farscape is listed on the template but the template is not on the Farscape page. Nor production companies. ANd others etc .... Dave Rave (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's not already, the scope of the template should be narrowed to "Syfy original programming" (i.e. shows both broadcast and produced by Syfy/Sci-Fi) – I don't think a template that lists every show ever broadcast by Syfy is particularly useful: that's what List of programs broadcast by Syfy would be for... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

apart from most templates equate to a page that also lists ... Dave Rave (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Not relevant. The discussion is what this template should do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary in episode articles' lead section

Should an episode article's lead section include a plot summary for the episode? I am not asking if spoilers are accepted (i completely support the inclusion of spoilers), i am asking if there is a place for a plot summary in the lead section's paragraphs per WP:TVLEAD. This issue came up at the Shut Up and Dance (Black Mirror) episode article. -- (Radiphus) 12:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It should establish one or two sentences of what the concept of the episode is about, though it need not cover the broad plot of the episode beginning to end. Enough to give a sense of what the episode would be about to a non-viewer, and to a viewer who may be looking for a specific episode but can't remember the name, enough to identify it. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what i thought, thanks. -- (Radiphus) 13:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes, but not always, the network will release a log line for the series. In the case of this episode, the log line can be seen on Netflix, which states "After a virus infects his laptop, a teen faces a daunting choice: carry out orders delivered by text message, or risk having intimate secrets exposed." This can be used to serve as a starting point for the summary in the lead, with respect to WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Opinions requested at Talk#Family Guy

An RfC at Family Guy has ended with the RfC closer suggesting that new wording be implemented in the lead. Opinions as to what this wording should be are requested at the discussion, which may be found here. Essentially we are trying to settle on a replacement for the word "adult". --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Marathi Stage shows (Natak)

Does the marathi natak (stage shows) which were not televised but are quiet popular for example, Kumari gangubai non metric, Sada sarvada, Jaanta raja, etc become eligible for an independent article.

srini (talk) 10:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Recurring vs guest cast

I always thought this was a no-brainer, but then I used to think that about what a sitcom was. There are edit wars at Chicago P.D. (TV series) and related articles regarding what a recurring character is. The war concerns Tracy Spiridakos, who appeared as the same character in 3 episodes of season 4 and has now been promoted to a starring role for season 5. One side of the argument is that she was recurring in season 4 while the other claims she was not. I thought that I'd throw this open to the wider TV community for discussion. Opinions anyone? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In the credits sense, recurring and guest cast are the same thing as they're all credited with "guest stars/starring"—or "special guest star(s)" in some cases. However, for a guest character to be considered recurring, while they don't necessarily need to be in every season, they need to be in a significant amount of episodes and story arcs during a series' run. (Paraphrasing MPFitz1968 here when this was discussed elsewhere.) Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, we've been over this in WP:TV a zillion times. Many of us (maybe a majority, but probably at least half) believe that it needs to 4, 5 or 6 episodes to be truly "recurring" role. Two episodes is never "recurring". And three episodes is controversial, esp. if the three episodes is consecutive, but many feel that it's short of "recurring" in any case... In the specific case of Spiridakos, context matters: she originally was only brought on for a guest role. If Sophia Bush had not left Chicago P.D. there is every reason to believe that Spiridakos' role would not have continued. Instead, Bush left the show, and then it took about another month before they announced that Spiridakos had been promoted to main cast. This is not a circumstance were Spiridakos was specifically hired for a "recurring role" one season in the expectation that she would be promoted to main the next season – instead, she was hired to do a guest role, and then was (re-)hired later after circumstances with the show's cast changed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

while they don't necessarily need to be in every season, they need to be in a significant amount of episodes and story arcs during a series' run. - What do you mean by significant? From what you've written it appears that somebody who has been in only one season, or only 10 episodes over a series run couldn't be recurring, which is quite silly.

we've been over this in WP:TV a zillion times - Great. Show me several examples where the convention that we've been working on for the 12 years that I've been working on TV articles has changed.

This is not a circumstance were Spiridakos was specifically hired for a "recurring role" one season in the expectation that she would be promoted to main the next season – instead, she was hired to do a guest role - That really is completely irrelevant. The point is that her role in season 4 was recurring. Your argument would preclude any character who appeared in a story arc, or in back to back episodes as being recurring and that doesn't make sense.

There are different levels of recurring; a character who appears in several episodes throughout a series run is a recurring character. If they only appear in one episode during a season they can still be a recurring character but not in that season. If they appear in multiple episodes in a season they're recurring in that season. It's not something you can qualify with a set number of episodes because circumstances vary. As a very long time editor here, I'd be interested to here the opinion of Bignole. I know he's made comment about this before. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) [sigh...] The point is that there is no established consensus either way on 3 episodes as "recurring". That's my point. Some think 3 is enough, others want to see 4, 5 or 6. That is why there's no "guideline" on this, and the current guideline is vague and leaves it to local consensus... But claiming that "3 episodes is established consensus" is patently false. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and it's not "irrelevant" when several sources actually characterize it as a "guest" role. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

claiming that "3 episodes is established consensus" - Who has claimed that?

it's not "irrelevant" when several sources actually characterize it as a "guest" role. - Nor is it when sources charcterise it as recurring. An editor added several sources and they were reverted. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You seemed to be implying it. And the editor in question added several sources, some of which characterized it as a "guest" role, and some of which characterized it as "recurring". That's why we're here – it's 3 episodes (which is controversial for "recurring"), and sources disagree. Basically, this is a "local consensus" problem, that WP:TV isn't going to be able to help with for all of the reasons already outlined. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not seem to be implying it and that was very clear at Talk:Chicago P.D. (TV series) where I wrote There has never been a guideline that defines the number of episodes required for recurring status. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You also said On the other hand, if they appear 3 times within a season, that is normally recurring., which is not accurate – it's just your opinion. And this – Note also that an actor be credited as a guest but appear in a recurring role and when an actor appears in 3 episodes in one season and then promoted to a starring role in the next, that's definitely a recurring role. is pure personal opinion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Instead of cherry-picking bits and pieces and completely misreading what was written, try reading the whole thing so you get the context right. You were the one who claimed "only a guest in S4 (not enough episodes)", thus placing a number on what you believe makes a recurring character. Another editor quite rightly said "Cast status is NOT determined by number of episodes per WP:TVCAST" and I then wrote a detailed explanation.

is pure personal opinion - Really? Are you seriously arguing that a starring role is NOT recurring? --AussieLegend (✉) 22:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(Ignoring that first point goes both ways part...) On the second point, yes, I am saying that a guest stint one season can lead to a starring role in the next season – that's what happened here. You seem to be arguing that three consecutive guest stints followed by a main role automatically makes the guest stint "recurring" – but that doesn't need to be the case: it could simply be a consecutive guest role, followed by a main cast promotion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

For something as small as 3 episodes, I would point to the contract. If she signed a contract as a "recurring role", then you can list it as such. If she just signed a contract to be a guest, with no stipulation on the number of episodes, then I'm leaning more toward saying she wasn't recurring. Regular guests can appear in more than one episode, and that doesn't make them recurring. Especially if they are all back to back episodes that are focused on a specific story. For example, Kristen Kreuk was not a recurring guest in season 8 of Smallville. She was just a guest, because she had 4 episodes left on your original contract that she had to suspend while filming a movie.

So, if you have a reliable source saying she signed on as a recurring guest, then there you go. If they only ever report "guest", then I would say no. We don't have a hard line standard for how many episodes, but 3 is probably a little low.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

How would one get access to the actor's contract? In any case, "guest" is how the role is credited. "Recurring" is a description of the role. They're two different things. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I assume we would only know about the contract if a reliable trade reported on it. As others have illustrated here, there is a lot of back and forth on what, exactly, recurring means, given it is a description of a guest actor rather than something different from one. Sometimes it depends on the series, but generally you can tell whether they should be listed as recurring or not based on the role (do they show up throughout a season or series, or did they just have a single guest stint that happened to go over several episodes?). - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

On the specific issue raised here, I do not watch this show, but I highly doubt that her role could have actually been recurring if she only appeared in 3 out of 23 episodes. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Aussie, that's what I was referring to about their contracts...whether it was reported as "recurring" or "guest". Now, granted I've seen some places report a "recurring" role for an actor who appeared twice, and never again. Now, did they mislabel that as recurring, or was that the intention but the developers decided against using them again? I don't know. YOu need to judge those as they come.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Broadcast engineering and technology task force

I am attempting to bring the Broadcast engineering and technology task force from inactive to semi-active state. Come join if you are interested. ~Kvng (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television episode updates

Made some edits to the parameters of {{Infobox television episode}}, code in Template:Infobox television episode/sandbox, test cases in Template:Infobox television episode/testcases. Just getting a few other sets of eyes on the code approval before I request an AWB bot to go through and make the changes.

• Instead of using this: |episode_list = [[Game of Thrones (season 7)|''Game of Thrones'' (season 7)]]<br>[[List of Game of Thrones episodes|List of ''Game of Thrones'' episodes]]
• We can use this: |season_list = Game of Thrones (season 7) |episode_list = List of Game of Thrones episodes

A bot would just need one set of regex to make these changes.

• Find: \|\s*episode_list\s*=\s*\[\[([^\|\]]*).*<br[^>]*>\[\[([^\|\]]*).*
• Replace with: | season_list = $1\n| episode_list = $2

Any comments? -- Alex^TW 16:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No issues with this? -- Alex^TW 17:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Unless I've misread this, isn't it just providing consistency with {{Infobox television season}}? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much, which is most of the reason behind these edits. I even re-used some of the code from the season template. Just making sure that nobody has any issues with it before I go ahead. -- Alex^TW 17:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Updates made, bot requested -- Alex^TW 10:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

BRFA filed -- Alex^TW 10:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Sorry I did not respond to your initial request. I don't have a problem with the parameter in theory, I just think "season_list" might not be the most appropriate name. Something like "season_article" seems better in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, can this field (whatever name) be added itself by taking the data from "series" and "season"? So if I do |series=Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and |season=1, the template would automatically spit back Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) for this new parameter. And I could still override this by adding text to |season_list=. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Good idea; I've updated the parameter name, especially since |season_list= was deprecated after we removed the collapsible list of episodes. And that's a possibility; I'll look into working on it after the replacements are made. -- Alex^TW 00:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't chime in either... I agree with Favre1fan93's suggestions! —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah no rush Alex. I'm thinking along the lines of what we did for the season articles, automatically adding links to next and prev season articles, if my wording wasn't clear (can't think of the word for what this action/coding is at the moment). So in theory, if a season article exists (including possibly redirects), the infobox would pull all the info necessary from the other fields. Because that will help populate this field for existing articles using the infobox that could benefit from it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with you; I know what you're suggesting and I definitely agree. I'll work on it soon, and see where we go from there. -- Alex^TW 04:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding a disagreement at "The Gifted (TV series)"

There is an RfC at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#RfC regarding some wording and interpretation of sources. It would be great if we could get some more opinions over there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ishqbaaaz#Awards and nominations

Hey all, Ishqbaaaz#Awards and nominations has either won or been nominated for numerous Star Parivaar Awards, awards given out by Star India, which is the same network that Ishqbaaaz airs on. Do we normally include that in TV articles? Seems awfully self-congratulatory. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I would cut it. It's not even sourced. Even if it were sourced, it might be prudent to exclude as per WP:ONUS. But, without sourcing, it can go right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Lost in Space (2018 TV series)

Lost in Space (2018 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was wondering if someone from WP:TV would take a closer look at this? The article seems like a good-faith attempt, but might need some serious rewritting to make more in line with MOS:TV. One thing I've noticed is all of the collapsed tables which contains content that seem pretty much WP:OR-ish and might be more appropriate for a fansite than a Wikipedia article about the show. I'm also a bit concerned that Talk:Lost in Space (2018 TV series)#ARTICLE DEVELOPMENT NOTE BY ROKKOROKKOROKKANNO might indicate some kind of COI editing and WP:SYN, which again are not really suitable for an encyclopedic article about the show. You'd expect there would be enough coverage in reliable sources about a new Netflix show for a fairly decent article to be written without all of the speculation and assumption, etc. and the coverage would only increase once the show actually airs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Brojam significantly cleaned this up today – it looks fine to me now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Brojam did do a nice job cleaning up at article and making seem like a Wikipedia article, but unfortunately all of the fancruft, etc. has been re-added again. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit and left a message at the user's talkpage. Hopefully, he will not continue to re-add it. - Brojam (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Just going by the username RokkoRokkoRokkanno, I am wondering if this editor is the same "Zakkaari Rokkanno" who's mentioned in User:RokkoRokkoRokkanno/sandbox#Dedicated Lost in Space Social Media Groups as starting the first ever Facebook group for the new show. If he/she is, then trying to add all of the fancruft and citing/mentioning the Facebook group might imply a COI of some sort as well as WP:SELFCITE and WP:NOTPROMOTION issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Opinions requested regarding Morty's name at Talk:List of Rick and Morty characters

Morty C-137 believes that his name should be Mortimer "Morty" Smith, Sr., because in s01e07 he had a son that he named "Morty Jr". On the other hand, i believe that this is incorrect, because this name has never been used in reference to the character. Thank you. -- (Radiphus) 19:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

SERIOUSLY??? I POSTED A SCREENGRAB PICTURE FROM THE EPISODE WHERE THE FULL NAME WAS VISUALLY USED FOR YOU TO REVIEW!!! Morty C-137 (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please calm down and reply in the talk page as requested. -- (Radiphus) 21:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

How about you stop the gaslighting. Sources have been presented and you keep saying it hasn't. Morty C-137 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Cast table problem

I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts about how to improve the cast table at List of NCIS characters#Recurring and notable cast and characters. The series is now airing its 15th season and column widths have had to be set to 5% to fit the table onto the page. Even so, the width of the text in the columns is such that this means nothing and all columns have been squashed despite setting text size to 95%. As aresult, this table is a mess. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps make the cell different and distinctive colours, remove the Recurring/Guest text, and simply label the coloured cells with a legend? -- Alex^TW 07:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you use initials for the text "G" for guest and "R" for recurring with a note at the top? -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that worked. Thanks for the suggestions. We now have room for at least another 7 seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: This is minor, but I think I'd advise putting the legend above the table(s), rather than below... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The last time I investigated the positioning of table keys, because there is basically nothing that specifically says where they should be placed, the response was that the key should go at the bottom. WP:COLOR actually says "do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels." Obviously, footnotes go at the bottom and this was the argument used to support the position of the key. i.e. put the actual information first and the supporting content (citations, notes, table keys etc) after the information. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as definitive, and if there's no specific guideline on the issue, I prefer to default to WP:Readers first – IOW, don't make readers hunt for info: make it easy to find. In that spirit, I think the legend goes better at the top. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Riverdale (2017 TV series)#Creating Article for Episode list

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Riverdale (2017 TV series)#Creating Article for Episode list. This discussion regards whether or not the series' episode tables should be split away to a separate article simply because it has passed its second season. -- Alex^TW 01:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion regarding creating List of episode articles and when to split content

Hi all. I have currently started a discussion about this at the MOS:TV talk page. Please join the discussion on the matter, which can be found here. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox cast discussion at Talk:Cheers

I have started the discussion at Talk:Cheers, where you can comment, about the insertions of two recurring actors in the infobox. --George Ho (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red November contest open to all

		Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Brad Pitt

Template:Brad Pitt has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Nominated because both templates are for collections of works produced by a person, in clear contravention of WP:FILMNAV. Don't know if there's a similar guideline for TV but since the templates include or have included TV shows, notably The OA and Feud (TV series), I figured this would be an appropriate place to notify. Your opinions for or against deletion are welcome at the discussion page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Television channels

I believe it is time to discuss regarding articles about a regional version of multinational TV channel brand, rebranded TV channels and the continuity, and disambiguation tags for TV channel names. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 03:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC). JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 13:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

(I originally posted the following ideas at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), but the discussion there ended with no response. So I'd like to continue it here:--

I thought there should be new rules regarding articles about television (and, to some extent, radio) channels.

1. If a regional version of a multinational TV channel business has a fully independent schedule, an article about that particular version can be created, regardless of where the channel is actually transmitted from. (Thus, for example, the articles like Cartoon Network (Brazil) and Discovery Kids (Brazil) can be created apart from Cartoon Network (Latin America) and Discovery Kids (Latin America), respectively.)
   • Of course, channels with simple regional advertisement opt-out or minor variation(s) in schedule (like UK's Sky Sports channels in the Republic of Ireland) should not be counted as such.
2. If, for example, 'Channel H' is simply a rebrand of 'Channel Q', and thus making the former a continuation of the latter, the two should be regarded as a same channel, even if the channel was also reformatted in the process (for example, a documentary channel turned into a sports channel).
   • In that sense, Discovery Kids USA-The Hub-Hub Network-Discovery Family should be treated as same channel rebranded over the years, and so does Locomotion (TV channel)-Animax (Latin America)-Sony Spin-Lifetime (Latin American TV channel).
   • (Edited. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)) Some exception(s) can be made if the two channels should be considered as different channels for legal or technical reason: for example, Discovery Kids (Canada) was replaced on most Canadian TV providers by Nickelodeon (Canada) with a separate CRTC licence. Thus, DK Canada and Nick Canada can be regarded as two separate channels.
3. And finally, article's title (with parenthesis) for disambiguation...
   • If a channel's name has any word that indicates a broadcast channel (like 'channel', 'television', 'TV', 'network', etc.), a word that strongly implies a media brand, or a name of broadcaster, article's title can simply have a name of country or region in parenthesis.
     • Cartoon Network (Latin America), TVN (South Korea), Disney Channel (Southeast Asia), Channel 5 (United Kingdom), etc.
     • Discovery Turbo (UK & Ireland), Cartoonito (Italy), Disney XD (Netherlands), etc.
     • BBC Entertainment (Southeast Asia), CBS Reality (UK & Ireland), CBC TV (Barbados), etc.
   • If a channel's name consists of normal word(s), there should be 'TV channel' in parenthesis as well.
     • Fox (Finnish TV channel), Boing (Spanish TV channel), Pop (Italian TV channel), Boomerang (Latin American TV channel), etc.

RFC relisted by Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} at 15:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

RFC launched initially in a mal-formed manner at 15:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC))

Orig. posted by JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} at 15:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC).

Disc. on correcting the RFC

This is not a meaningful RfC. See how it appears at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming, and then please review WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief. It is indeed both neutral and brief, but tells us nothing at all about the matter under discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC) Fixed them. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC) @JSH-alive: No you didn't. You tampered with a bot-maintained page, and were soon reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Ugh. So, that's not how it works? (Sigh) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 02:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC) No, it's not; maybe you'd better read WP:RFC. If you don't have time, note that I already linked WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief, where it says "Legobot will copy your statement (from the end of the {{RFC}} template through the first date stamp) to the list of active RfCs." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

!Votes

• Support, apart from point three. The issue is that some of the examples you have given include acronyms/initialisms, which act as the WP:COMMONNAME. Readers may not be aware of for what these initials stand, therefore we should not be making the assumption that they know they are TV channels. It is a much safer bet to make it clear to people exactly what the article covers. For example 'Channel 5 (United Kingdom)' v 'Channel 5 (UK TV channel)' is not an important comparison. The latter is certainly not too 'clunky'. Whilst most people know that C5 is a TV channel, not all will. WP's aim is to educate readers, and provide them with more information. C5 could be a radio station, for instance, or the name of a night club. It never harms to over-specify. –Sb2001 01:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Supportbasically logical, tho, as noted below, there will always be border situations that need interpretation and could go either way. That's true of most guidelines, but that doesn't mean guideline are useless--they provide a structure for the discussion. The main point I'm not sure about is where successor channels are different in a major way, and each have a long existence and a substantial history. By analogy with what we do with companies in general, if the earlier one is still very widely known, it can be helpful to divide the article. But for most cases, as we do for all sorts of organizations, it can better be discussed in a separate article. As for titles, my own preference is to err on the side of specification, as mentioned above, but that's not always the general practice here. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons below - while these channels might be notable, their articles are usually unsourced or poorly sourced and usually have an unsourced list of programming that falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. These two-paragraph articles can easily become a section in their parent channel's article. This RfC encourages more bad articles that should really be part of their parent channel's articles. Bright☀ 18:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• These seem like reasonable ideas, but there also appear to be some close cases that might come down to details of a specific case.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I find nearly all of these small-station articles to consist mostly of original research and improperly used referenced. They almost always turn into TV guides for those specific stations instead of actual encyclopedic articles about the topic. This RfC is painting the bike shed when the real issue is the lack of verifiable and encyclopedic information in these articles. Bright☀ 10:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's use Discovery Kids (Canada) as an example, since it was already mentioned. All the properly sourced information in the article can be put in a section titled "Discovery Kids Canada" in Discovery Family. The list of "former programming" distinctly falls under WP:NOT, and moreover it's unreferenced, and in my opinion non-encyclopedic. And this is one of the better examples of an article of this kind. Almost all of these articles need to be sections in larger articles, and all their unreferenced material (almost always a list of programming) needs to be removed. Bright☀ 10:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It depends how this is done. A list of former original programming seems to be completely legit to me for an article on a network (or for a "List of programs broadcast by..." article, or for a template devoted to that network). OTOH, a list of (current or) former programming that is not produced by the network in question (e.g. "rerun" syndicated programs, etc.) probably does fail WP:NOT, especially if unsourced. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I seem to remember a policy or guideline on the matter... maybe some members of the Wikiproject can enlighten us. Anyway the point was that most of these articles are poorly referenced and provide unreferenced or poorly-referenced indiscriminate lists. Bright☀ 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Plot bloat alternatives

Hey all, so occasionally we get Indian editors who want to write all about a TV show's plot, like here. For some time, I've been truncating these per WP:TVPLOT, but I wonder if there's not a better approach. While yes, the plot section is supposed to briefly describe the shape of the series, Indian TV articles almost never get episode lists/summaries, and with a show like Kasam Tere Pyaar Ki, they're already 400+ episodes in, so nobody's ever going to create an episode list and summarize each episode.

Surely the lengthier summaries are of some academic value, but is there a smarter way to allow for their existence? Yes, I'm aware of WP:DERIVATIVE as a potential copyright concern, but in my mind there's nothing materially different about writing a hundred 150-200 word summaries for each episode vs. writing a large wall of text about an entire season. What sort of encyclopedic compromise can we make here? Season summary text wall? Is what's happening here so ridiculous if it attempts to describe key moments across 400 episodes? Yeah, it's ridiculous if we're going by WP:TVPLOT, but what if we renamed the section? Would appreciate some feedback here. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

What do the U.S. daytime soap opera articles do?... This situation here is similar. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The US soaps generally have a generous section that gives an overview of notable families/characters and touches on notable storylines. General Hospital does a good job in combining story with real-world production info and decent sourcing; Days of Our Lives has separates production history from storyline, but is well done and includes citations. Most of the detailed story coverage for these long-running shows ends up in individual characters articles, some of which are better constructed than others. But these shows have like 50 years and 13,000+ episodes each. Regarding your Kasam Tere Pyaar Ki example, your trim is definitely more appropriate, a 2-year-old show does not need that much plot coverage. I would say that one paragraph per year is fine for now, but the entire plot section should never get any larger than what it is right now. So moving forward, as story gets added, past story should be trimmed combined into notable arcs. I think as time goes on it gets easier to look back and see what is "important" in terms of the overall show history, and what only seemed notable as it was "happening".— TAnthony^Talk 18:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

First name or last name of fictional character in prose?

At Crazy Eyes (character) there is contention as to whether to use the first name or the last name in the article. What is the proper policy to address this issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You should use the name that's commonly being used to refer to the character (i am not watching the show, but i believe it's the first name), and the last name should be used for the actress. -- (Radiphus) 14:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Names as per credits, as per WP:TVCAST. If a character name is not credited, then you have to go by the WP:COMMONNAME as per reliable sourcing. But names as per credits is the first, and best, answer, if available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IJBall (talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST refers only to the cast list section of an article, I believe. But even if it doesn't, it is worded as: All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source, so it would fair to refer to characters as they are commonly referred to in the show (with the episodes serving as reliable primary sources) or by the entertainment press. So if someone is credited as "John Albert Renshaw Davis", but referred to as "Renshaw" throughout the show, "Renshaw" would be the best way to refer to them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No – "names as per credits" is your first stop. It never usually doesn't goes the way you suggest – the credited names are generally short, and the "in-show" character names are longer. But if they are credited as "Joe", that is how they should be primarily referred to in the prose. If they are credited as "Officer Daly", then that is how they should be referred to. You only rely on secondary sourcing for WP:COMMONNAME if the credits don't include the name. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC) (Amended: --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC))

Do the credits include the name in this case? If yes, what is it? -- (Radiphus) 17:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That I don't know, as I don't watch Orange Is the New Black. I'm just saying, if there's a credited name, go with that.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I assumed it doesn't. If this is the case, the article should refer to the character as "Suzanne", as do The Wrap and E!News for example. -- (Radiphus) 17:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Credits won't help much when talking about usage the body of the article, because most of the time official casts lists and credits will use first and last names. In this particular case I believe the inmates call her "Suzanne" but guards/administrators call her "Warren"; the article should reflect how most sources refer to the character (which I'd guess is Suzanne).— TAnthony^Talk 17:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That will definitely be true for some TV shows (e.g. for example, Greenhouse Academy definitely gives first name-last name character credits), but not of others. The bigger problem will be that lots of shows don't even have credited character names (i.e. just crediting that actors themselves in the front credits) – in both of these cases, then you have to fall back on the sourced/in-show WP:COMMONNAME... That's why I was saying the "names as per credits" is the "first stop" in this process – for numerous shows, it won't be the last stop, unfortunately... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Funny that "Crazy Eyes" is listed as the nickname for the character in the credits, how the article is titled, but that is not how she is commonly referred to in the show? Or the article about the character? Using the full credited name in that case which is "Suzanne 'Crazy Eyes' Warren" on each referral would be unwarranted in descriptive text but I can't see why the article isn't using "Crazy Eyes" on each referral instead of either her first or last name. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but though the character started off being called "Crazy Eyes", in recent years that has gone away as they've made her more sympathetic and part of the ensemble, and I don't think the article's name was ever reassessed. Of course, Crazy Eyes could still be considered the common name based on mainstream knowledge of the character, but we digress LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 17:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

For the article I think she should be referred to as "Crazy Eyes" on each referral unless the article name itself is changed to reflect a new COMMONNAME for the character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: The MOS wording doesn't say that "names as per credits" supercedes common name (for good reason). It says "names as per credits or common name". "Official" names do not automatically trump common names here, hence WP:COMMONNAME. If the intent of the MOS was as you are describing, then it would read "Always use credited names for characters if they are given, otherwise use their common name" or something to that effect. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The credited name generally is the COMMONNAME – that's why it's listed first in the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The English Audio Description uses Suzanne, especially in Season 1 episode 3, so I would use that as common name for the character. The last name formality tends to be a problem for fictional television characters as many are in families so the last name would be common to many characters. But you can use the most likely common name as would be shown in the script or captions, like Mr. Burns. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd bet dollars-to-donuts that that one is credited as just "Mr. Burns" in the end-credits of The Simpsons, so it's not necessary to take the extra step and check a script. Again, in many situations, "names as per credits" will be the simplest (and most correct) solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually The Simpsons credits hardly ever list the character names, but yes, you can check the captions and other material, that shows the preferred name. But back to Crazy Eyes, is she called that consistently in later seasons, like there was a conscious effort to rename her character to such? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

the timing of adding new actors to cast lists

My understanding based on MOS:TVCAST was that we didn't add newly announced actors to cast lists in Cast and Characters-type sections (or the Infobox) for TV-related articles until the first episode where they had been credited as appearing aired; in fact I'm pretty sure I've been reverted for making these kinds of additions in the past, having been told it was fine to add new actors in a "Casting" section when announced but given this part of MOS:TVCAST: The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. we held off adding them to cast lists until they had actually appeared (which makes total sense to me because until they first appear, how are we to know what order they may be credited in?).

I've just been told I am mistaken on this front. Can I get some guidance on this? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

At the end of that paragraph it states: New casting information for forthcoming characters should be added to the bottom of the list, with their position readjusted if necessary based on the method defined above. - Brojam (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Morales (The Walking Dead) picture

Hi, wondering can anyone get a season 8 image of Morales (The Walking Dead) for the article's infobox please? Cheers, Theo (edits) 09:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

missing "edit wikidata" link when using Template:Official website?

I've noticed just now that where before there used to be the little pencil "edit wikidata" icon after the URL generated by {{Official website}} if the data for that template was coming from wikidata, it's now not showing up. This seems like a recent change, and most likely an error. Anyone more well-versed in the innards of programming Wikipedia/wikidata want to look into that? It seems like something it would be best to have back.

An example of what I mean, where the IMDb template-generated link shows the pencil icon but the Official website-template generated one does not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this problem has anything to do with the TV project. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments at Talk:Rishta Likhenge Hum Naya

Can I please get some extra feedback at Talk:Rishta Likhenge Hum Naya?

Short story: That series is a restructuring of another series, Pehredaar Piya Ki. Pehredaar Piya Ki took a lot of flak for depicting two central characters, an 18-year-old woman and a 9-year-old boy as married. That series was pushed to a later time slot, ratings dropped, and the show was cancelled. Producers decided to restructure the series by replacing the kid with an adult in the same role. They are keeping most of the same cast, and they've rebranded as Rishta Likhenge Hum Naya.

The question: Does any of this information about how the series was conceived belong in the article about the new series?

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguating telenovelas

See Talk:La Venganza (Colombian telenovela)#Requested move 5 November 2017 for a discussion affecting many articles within the scope of this WikiProject. Any help appreciated. TIA Andrewa (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Correction: That discussion affects one single article which as found to not be in compliance with the current WP:NCTV naming convention guideline. To discuss the situation as it applies to the guideline itself, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#telenovelas. -- Netoholic @ 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Will & Grace episode nominated for deletion

Resolved

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11 Years Later. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Kept. ----Another Believer _(Talk) 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Numidia (TV channel)

Would someone from WP:TV take a look at Numidia (TV channel) and assess it? Article has been around a couple years, but it's not clear whether this is notable enough for a stand-alone article/stub and can support anything more than a single sentence since the only source cited is a video from the channel's official YouTube channel. From the article's history, it looks as if it had more content at one time, but some of that was rev deleted as a copyvio. There also seem to be other articles in Category:Television stations in Algeria created by the same editor who created the Numidia TV one which might also need to be reviewed/assessed. I thought that redirecting some of these might be an option, but I'm not sure which article they could be should be redirected to. Maybe List of television channels in Algeria, Television in Algeria or even Media of Algeria#Television are possible candidates. It's hard to figure out what to do with articles such as these and their may be an unintentional bias against them because they are from smaller countries and might not receive lots of coverage in traditional English sources. There may actually be some non-English sources which can help strengthen their Wikipedia notability, but finding these is a bit hard and the articles themselves never really seem to move beyond a one or two sentence stub in any case or end up filled with lots of non-encyclopedic filler. Anyway, any suggestions on how to deal with these kind of articles would be welcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Two pages for the same character: Reginald Chuffnel ("Chuffy"), and Chuffy

This is simple. There are two different WIKI pages for the same fictional character from the P.G. Wodehouse series, Jeeves and Wooster.

Have a look at: Reginald Chuffnell ("Chuffy")

And then look at: Chuffy.

Need to combine them. I suggest that you keep the Reginald Chuffnell ("Chuffy") page as the primary page. However there is better distribution and additional information, such as Cast, Plot, See Also, and outside links that you would want to blend into the main page. Between the two, you would have a better combined page. Once complete, make sure that any links to: Chuffy get redirected there.

James 96.30.101.44 (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Uh... The first of these is devoted to the character; the second of these looks like it's devoted an episode of the series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Schwahn sexual harassment allegations

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mark Schwahn#Undue section. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Format for plot sections

As seen with this and this edit, Brojam changed the plot section of the One Tree Hill (TV series) article to include subsections for each season. And I know that other articles, such as Lost (TV series) and The Walking Dead (TV series), do this as well. Has this setup become the standard now? Personally, I prefer the section without all of those subheadings; for example, how the plot section of the One Tree Hill (TV series) article looked before they were added. If we look at the Smallville article, though, it summarizes everything in one paragraph.

Joeyconnick, since you also edit the One Tree Hill (TV series) article and other television show articles, any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a local consensus sort of thing rather than something we have a standard for, but personally seems like overkill to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the prose way without the section headings myself, because the linked-to "List of ZZZ episodes" pages that usually are referenced at the beginning of these sections are already subdivided by season and detailed subdivisions like that seem better suited to "List of..." articles to me. And purely from a TOC point of view, it clutters it too much (in my opinion) and if we were to limit the TOC to avoid those section headings showing up, we'd lose all the second-level headings in the rest of the article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the TOC clutter is my main issue with the setup. What if the show had as many seasons as Doctor Who, for example? I doubt we'd use the subheadings then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly have a strong opinion about the subsections. I usually find them more useful for longer series rather than a massive section as seen here. However if the plots were shorten to comply with WP:TVPLOT (100 words per season) it might not be as bad without any subsections. I've went ahead and reverted back without the subsections and tagged the plots to be shorten. - Brojam (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brojam. Pinging Masem, Drovethrughosts and Sock, who edit the The Walking Dead (TV series) article, in case they want to weigh in on this. I also watch that article and have occasionally edited it. And I know that Masem has been reducing plot sections for Walking Dead character articles. Maybe he'd be willing to take a stab at reducing the plot section for the One Tree Hill (TV series) article as well? I'm familiar with the series and am less objective when it comes to what plot material should stay there. But at the same time, I'm aware of what plot material should stay. Popcornduff, who is good at reducing plot length, might be willing to help as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I'm definitely in agreement that the season subsections for the plotline is unnecessary. Having a lead sentence that clarifies what season it is, much like how One Tree Hill currently is. The prose definitely needs trimming, but I think that method of plot summary works pretty well. Sock (tock talk) 17:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sock: Think you might have pinged the wrong editor there. Popcornduff (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: You would be right, I saw your name at the bottom of Flyer22 Reborn's post and mistakenly thought it was your post. So @Flyer22 Reborn:, here is your proper ping. Sock (tock talk) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sock, I also considered that you meant to ping me. I thanked you via WP:Echo not only because you made the comment, but partly so that you would analyze it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Victoria (TV series)‎#Requested move 28 November 2017

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Victoria (TV series)‎#Requested move 28 November 2017. -- Alex^TW 14:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Michelle Thomas

A discussion is presently ongoing on Michelle Thomas in regards to the sourcing of her DOB/DOD. Input would be most appreciated. Rusted AutoParts 07:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Who wants to be a Regis clone ?

This page has "Millionaire" in about 11 different ranking positions. By what insane reasoning does this make sense? Same title, same host, same same format, same network--the exact same show in every way. Yet somebody thinks it's a different show just because it's on a different night. Say what?! TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cold TV blues

I used to watch this show on CBC late night, but now, a Google search (nor IMBb, nor TV.com; CBC.ca gives me nothing but hash) can't find any trace: "Red, Hot, and Blues" (or was it "blue"?) Anybody got a link? Or want to write a stub page? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Television

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 12:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term "Soft reboot"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Once Upon a Time (season 7)#Use of the term soft reboot. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Should we continue saying "sharing continuity with the films of the [Marvel Cinematic Universe] franchise"?

See "sharing_continuity". A bunch of users have commented, but User:Betty Logan specifically said that since it has more relevance to TV articles it probably should have been discussed here, and no one disagreed with her. (I had thought, before I actually postef it and people responded, that it was 50/50, and MOS:FILM is more familiar to me.) I'm indifferent to whether a new (more thorough?) discussion takes place here or MOS:TV-watchers take this as a notification of a relevant discussion and go over there.

My reasoning for thinking the wording is problematic is outlined ovee there, but basically it feels like a combination of fan speculation, inappropriate use of promotional rhetoric taken from primary sources, and plain counter-factual information.

Not sure if I should ping the editors who already commented at the MOS:FILM talk page per my above-stated indifference whether the discussion moves here or continues there.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion should probably continue at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#"sharing_continuity" now so we don't have two discussions, but the TV project definitely needs to be aware of it and it would be good if it had TV input. No point coming up with a guideline just for another project to veto it down the line. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC about this for one show; see Talk:Arrowverse#Should Supergirl be mentioned as being a part of Arrowverse?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Pilot (television episode)

Do we at WP:TV think this page is kosher?! It's passing itself as a disambiguation list, but the vast majority of entries here do not actually link to articles, so effectively this serves as a unsourced, Indiscriminate list... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's normal for disambiguation pages to link to the nearest-relevant topic when a separate page does not exist. This is fine. The naming of the page is also fairly reasonable given that all of the specific episodes would overwhelm the disambiguation page at pilot. --Izno (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Properly format the introductory line, delete entries that do not link to pages, reformat entries that link to pages merely discussing the pilot, replace the {{Set index article}} with {{disambiguation}}, and then we'll have a proper disambiguating page. Otherwise, it's an unreferenced list of television pilots named "Pilot", and needs other, more intensive help. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Considering that every TV series has a pilot episode, and a very high percentage will be named as such, it seems sensible to only list actual links, either to episode articles ("Pilot" (30 Rock)) or redirects to lists ("Pilot" (21 Jump Street)). I don't see the value in an entry like "Pilot" (The 100), which creates, in effect, just a redundant (and seemingly endless) list of links to every TV series we can think of.— TAnthony^Talk 19:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, not every TV series has a first episode that is titled "Pilot" (though all function as "pilot episodes"), it's just most that do. But a few series actually give their pilots proper episode titles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This feels like it should be a category and not a page listing every single pilot page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a dab page, which is absurd given the number of shows that don't bother to give their debut episodes proper titles, it should be describing the function of a pilot, & saying something about how many pilots never see air. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: That is what the article Television pilot attempts to do. Pilot (television episode) seems to exist only to be a disambig. page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Thx for that; I've never come across that one before. Which makes the dab page ridiculous; AFAIK, nobody searching for a series pilot searches "pilot", without knowing the name of the series.... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Bignole that this should be a catego... oh hey look! We already have one at Category:Television pilots. So I don't see a purpose of this article, especially given Television pilot exists to describe the nature of what a pilot is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

IMDB discussion

An editor has come to my talk page insisting that an imdb citation be restored after this edit that I made to Shot in the Dark (TV series), a program released on Netflix last month. The citation was used to support the release date. I'd like to invite everyone to make any comment that they feel appropriate at the discussion, which may be found here. Thanks. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Fox becomes Disney?

I've been noticing a lot of articles getting changed from Fox Broadcasting to Disney etc. since the buyout. As well, I;ve been noting the massive, often less-than-pleasant comments accompanying the revert of said alterations. We should probably discuss how we are going to address a lot of the Fox articles, since I don't see this as a problem that will go away without guidance based upon consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that the deal has not be done yet, so changing things now makes zero sense. Second, we have no idea how the naming will done (will the Fox name carry to disney? we don't know), so that's also a problem. Finally, this should only be done when that happens to shows that now will be run or produced by whatever the name of fox venues that moved to Disney, not retroactively applied to previous shows (like, say, the Simpsons). --Masem (t) 13:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Revisionist history. All of those shows are Fox shows – they were produced when Fox Studios, etc. still existed as an entity. So they should absolutely not be changed to Disney. This is exactly the same issue as when something like ABC Family channel changes its name to Freeform – all of the shows that aired when the channel was still ABC Family should list ABC Family as their channel, not Freeform, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any "changing". At best, there would be an additional studio/channel eventually added should a name change actually occur. This is no different than New Line being bought by Warner Bros. Their movies are still New Line movies, just like Columbia Pictures are still Columbia Pictures even though Sony owns them. If they don't change the name, then nothing should change in the actual article regardless of the deal. If FX and Fox stations remain named as they are, then Disney has no place in those TV articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of when "SciFi" changed its name to "Syfy". All mention of "SciFi" was quickly expunged from Wikipedia and replaced with "Syfy", resulting in statements like "Syfy has aired anime programming off and on throughout its history" on the day that the channel changed its name, before "Syfy" had any history. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to use a cast table on List of Rick and Morty characters?

HarrisonSteam has created a cast table, which lists some of the characters and voice actors that have appeared on Rick and Morty. I removed this table earlier today, but they reverted my edit and started a discussion at Talk:List of Rick and Morty characters#Overview, where i hope you will take part. Thank you. -- ★ Radiphus ★ 16:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, should have specified that I meant Recurring Characters rather than Cast. Doing so. Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:INCDAB at Vikings (TV series)

Please see discussion at Talk:Vikings (TV series)#Requested move 19 December 2017. --woodensuperman 09:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Categorizing future debuts / seasons

Hello. User:AlexTheWhovian has depopulated Category:2018 American television series debuts and Category:2018 American television series endings (example diff: [11]). I don't really care about endings, but debuts is more interesting. Should this be done?

I am inclined to say no, the debuts category should not be emptied. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. From that policy:

Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.... In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

Most TV shows coming out in the near future are much closer to the Olympics example. Sure, they might be cancelled / delayed if something totally crazy happens (and even if delayed, might well still be released in the same year). But it's not very likely, and if it happens, it's the same thing that happens to reliably sourced content when events outpace them - we get new sources and can update or remove the category as appropriate. Per the policy above, they key criterion is if such a date is verifiable in reliable sources. Which it often should be. If something is crystal-balling too far into the future per the WP:NFF films-in-production example, then sure, remove it then, but in general the sources will be really weak for such cases anyway ("estimated release in 2020" vs. "Network A has scheduled January 25, 2018 as its premiere date."). Category:2018 has quite a number of members, no need to single TV shows out as not participating in it. SnowFire (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with it providing there's reliable sources specifically stating it will premiere in 2018, but I expect to be in the minority. If the show ultimately doesn't premiere or is delayed, then it can be removed just as easily as adding it in the first place. The 2020 Olympics are announced for 2020, but we can never be certain it will actually go ahead until it does. I just don't see the harm here -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

My $0.02? – If there's a actual, definite "premiere date" (e.g. "January 10, 2018") that's confirmed by a reliable secondary source or primary source press release, then it should be OK if it's included in the Category:2018 American television series debuts, basically as per WP:V. However, if the "premiere date" is more vague – e.g. "spring 2018" or "[likely] sometime in 2018", then it should be left out of the category until a more definite premiere date is announced, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Speaking from the video game category, we have two sets of categories for releases, one for "Upcoming video game releases in 20xx", and another for "20xx video game releases". The former is for when dates have been announced, but release has not happened; the latter is only populated once there's confirmation that that released happened. The TV project could easily have such a category distinction, particularly given how care dates in infoboxes are used (eg not added until actually aired). --Masem (t) 16:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I think Masem, IJBall, and my comment could be combined by using the existing Category:Upcoming television series (no date) for the vague "this television show is slated for 2019" cases, and then just straight-up use the normal categories once an actual, referenced date is set, even if it's in the future. Since, as noted above, if something crazy DOES happen, well, just fix it. Quite a number of the examples do have hard dates set and already scheduled releases from reliable sources, so they could largely be restored to the 2018 television categories. SnowFire (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that anything with a referenced specific premiere date can/should be restored to Category:2018 American television series debuts. But, be careful – many shows still do not have that. For example, somebody just tried to re-add Big City Greens, but that one definitely does not have a specific, definite premiere date at this time. Plenty of other shows will be in the same boat, and those should all be kept out for now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

If a premiere or ending date is covered in a reliable source, inclusion totally satisfies WP:CRYSTAL, – that policy aims to deter speculation – so I believe those categories should be used. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at MOS:TV regarding categories such as Category:2018 television seasons that are regularly populated up to 10 months before any episodes have aired. More comments are needed there. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Modern Family characters

I started the discussion at Talk:List of Modern Family characters#Character infoboxes about content at "List of Modern Family characters". George Ho (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion aimed at clearing up category inclusion criteria

Editors here are invited to participate in the discussion at Category talk:Gay-related television programs. The discussion is aimed at clearing up the inclusion criteria for that TV related category. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Earth 2 (TV series)#Episode listing: airing order vs narrative order

This is now the second time I've had to refer a discussion at Talk:Earth 2 (TV series) to WT:TV. Netoholic is effectively claiming that episode tables should not be listed in terms of broadcast airing order, and instead should be listed in terms of "narrative story order" (which usually, though not always, matches the production code order).

Anyway, while Netoholic probably has a point that this should be explicitly spelled out in the MOS:TV guideline, it would be good if some of the regulars here in WP:TV might try their hands at explaining this issue at Talk:Earth 2 (TV series)#Episode listing: airing order vs narrative order, as Netoholic is denying either that this is standard practice in WP:TV, or he seems to be claiming that it's an invalid practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying its an invalid practice - usually airing order is fine as it doesn't really matter. For this article it DOES matter, though, and there is no guideline or reliable source for the current airdate order superseding the narrative viewing order given by several sources I've listed. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors to your project?

Happy new year! As you may remember, I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute. See my previous post. I’ve been working it on in the past several months, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it. If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tangled: The Series#Source

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tangled: The Series#Source. This discussion relates to whether past episodes should be sourced or not, and WP:TV participants were mentioned in an editor's reply. -- Alex^TW 04:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

New topic at the above discussion: do titles and airdates of aired episodes need sourcing? -- Alex^TW 05:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Tom & Jerry "English", and italics

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation#Tom & Jerry "English", and italics
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

"The Good Doctor"

I added a summary for latest episode of The Good Doctor entitled "Islands Part One." I admit it's a bit long. So if anybody can make it more concise, feel free. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

New season of American Idol

I have started a discussion on Talk:American Idol (ABC TV series), proposing that it should be renamed "American Idol (season 16)" as it is still apparently the same show. However, I'm would appreciate input as ABC appears to want to call this coming season the first season [12]. I can see problems if the network and the media start to name this and possible subsequent seasons differently. Therefore should we follow what ABC apparently wants to do, and do we consider it the same or a different show? I can see arguments on both sides, and therefore would appreciate input to clarify the issue. Hzh (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Until we know for sure, we can continue on as season 16. We can always move it to the correct name per ABC. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Additional Voices, and on self-published announcements of works and roles

We have two RFCs going on WT:ANIME:

• The first is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Should additional voices be included in filmographies? concerning whether Additional voices are notable enough to include in filmographies.
• The second is whether self-published announcements of works and roles are acceptable as a reliable source. There are typically in the format of "Catch me on show X as role Y". Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Are self-published announcements of works and roles (e.g. Tweets, Facebook posts) where the content is in the lines of "Catch me on show X as role Y" acceptable as a reliable source?

Thanks in advance for your input. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Matt Stahl

Matt Stahl was created in August 2017, but it's currently nothing but a few sentences with citation to IMDb and All Music. Since the subject's listed as a TV producer, I'm wondering if anything he's done would help him pass WP:BIO? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Just based on the IMDb entry, I would advise WP:PRODing – subject does not appear to be notable. If it's been PRODed before, then I would take it to WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move discussions that require additional input

There are related RM discussions at Talk:Vikings (TV series) and Talk:Vikings (TV documentary series) that require input from additional editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I gave my 2 cents. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

In Australia we haven't had 1 or 2 cent coins for a long time. 2c is rounded down to zero. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Key

Michael Key I am trying to help save an article that is at AFD. This guy has won two Emmy Award for Individual Achievement in Make-up artistry. There are good citations for those. Plus he meets part three under notability for Creative professionals by

Plus he received multiple nominations 4-5 for the same award for at least four other episodes of the same series. So it is not a one episode deal.

So the section of part three:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. is satisfied.

Also this part of #3 work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series

is satisfied because the awards and nominations for his body of work were for multiple episodes of the notable series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. not just one.

Am I reading this wrong? Thank you for any suggestions you might have. Lacypaperclip (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with references

Any chance some interested person could take on the project of improving the references of the pages in Category:United States Saturday morning network television schedules? The older pages have a single end reference to a book but no page number. Most of them have no references at all. Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please come and help...

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:American Idol (ABC TV series)#Requested move 6 January 2018, regarding a page related to this WikiProject. Your opinion and rationale are needed so a decision can be made. Thank you and Happy Publishing!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Uh, there seems to be a problem here!

On the page List of The Magic School Bus episodes it seems there is an inaccuracy with air dates being the wrong ones. Assuming good faith I edited the article to match the correct airdates rather than the fake airdates, and that same user swiftly reverted those edits I made. A user by the name of User:SummerPhDv2.0 had said that this violates the notice at WP:KIDSTVDATES but I feel as if this is unfair and unjust. I am putting this out here before this becomes an edit-war. --8.19.248.31 (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding to this - I just reverted the article back and mentioned the information was accurate per PBS and Scholastic. Could someone look into this? Thanks. --8.19.248.31 (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to provide a(n inline) source to verify the airdates. If you do not provide sourcing when you do mass changes to a series' airdates, everyone will assume that you are just a date vandal as per WP:KIDSTVDATES. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It is recommend that you provide a source, yes, but nothing states that you have to provide it inline - the talk page does just as well. See 90% of television series articles, only a scattering of editors insist on inline sources. Best to take it there and convince editors that your edits are indeed correct and in good faith. Also, you didn't violate WP:KIDSTVDATES, as that is not an essay, guideline or policy, but a user's page. -- Alex^TW 16:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the reverting editors are unaware that the current version is indeed the vandalistic version from this edit. This is the previous version. -- Alex^TW 16:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think the current dates are in error, then please restore to the version you think is correct, with an edit summary explaining why – including a date or a diff with the original date vandalism is incredibly useful, and is something I have done myself when I've undone it... But I can't leave one thing you say unchallenged: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. That is straight from WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I have provided proof of previous vandalism changing the dates to those in error, and I've already provided such links. (After they were changed back initially, SummerPhDv2.0 actually restored the vandalism, and hence contributed to the vandalism themselves.) It's up to you to revert your incorrect edit and apologize to the IP editor for automatically reverting them and assuming they were incorrect, instead of doing your research. -- Alex^TW 16:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? Are your fingers broken? When you find an error, it's your responsibility as a Wiki editor to fix it. Why are you asking others to do it? And, no, an apology is not actually necessary here – if the IP had done what you did in their edit summary, and/or provided a source for the correct airdates, there would have been no doubt about the correctness of their edits. In any case, I'm going to also ping SummerPhDv2.0 to this discussion as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You restored vandalism, and you have been made aware of this and the error of it, so it's your responsibility as a Wiki editor to fix it. Research - it's FUNdamental! SummerPhDv2.0 was pinged in the IP editor's initial post - I look forward to seeing their defense for the restoring of vandalism. If you support this version, then you are now aware of the "error" existing at The Magic School Bus (TV series) with the dates - it's up to you to change it now. -- Alex^TW 16:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I have restored this version from Dec. 16, 2017 (which seems to be the last "good" version), as your wrists appear to be sore, and I would feel awful if you risked any further injury in pursuit of this matter. Cheers. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

While I'm at it, that article has other errors, and I'm bored, so I'll be fixing those now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And what's the moral of the story today? Not all IP editors are here to disrupt - many are actually here in good faith, so we should assume the same! Great stuff! Now, my wrists are indeed so sore, since it's 3am, so maybe I'll head off. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 16:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Every version is unsourced. "Vandalistic"? If so, it is vary pervasive, single minded form of vandalism: changing dates for episodes of kids' TV shows. Here's a list of several hundred.[13] If you look through the history of that article (and dozens of others), you will find repeated changes to dates -- different sets of dates. Here are two.[14] Which one is "vandalistic"? Who knows. Neither one is sourced.

An edit summary saying they are "per information from PBS and Scholastic" is a start, but not verifiable.

Various other editors at various other sources have not required in-line cites? I hope it works out for them in those articles. In these articles, I am challenging all unsourced changes to dates ("any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.")

Starting discussions on my talk page, the article's talk page and here are a good start (though following three discussions on one topic is likely to be confusing). If you have a reliable source for the changes, WP:CITE can help you figure out how to cite them. If that doesn't work, provide the source in any one of these discussions and I would be more than happy to walk you through. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

In these articles, I am challenging all unsourced changes to date - a falsity, as presented in the diff links. So, no comment on how you didn't question one editor that changed the dates without source or summary, after which you restored those dates after another editor restored the previous long-standing version of the article? Duly noted. -- Alex^TW 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify: I am challenging any unsourced/unexplained changes to these articles that I see. I hope that is sufficiently clear. I did not mean to imply that I am omnipresent. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple of quick points here. Please do not assume that I assume that all IP editors are vandals. I do not. (Technical note: I was not pinged by the initial request here. Linking to a user page does not notify the user.)

No, it is not my responsibility to check an editor's changes, search for sources they have not provided, verify that the version they are changing from is correct before restoring it, etc. If an editor makes a change to an article, assuring that the new information is verifiable is their burden.

Through the history of these articles, it is clear there have been thousands of incorrect changes to dates. Some are pure vandalism. Most are likely good faith attempts to correct perceived errors that wind up replacing bad or good information with bad information. Somewhere in there, someone likely added verifiable dates without actually providing sources. Those changes were either reverted or lost to other unsourced changes. Across dozens of articles it is very unlikely that editors will seek out sources to ferret out which of the thousands of edits are correct. If an editor has a source and makes a change, providing the source solves the problem. If an editor does not have a source, they should not be making the change. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Which, once again, points up the necessity to source all airdates in all episode tables (regardless of how a few WP:TV editors "feel" on the matter...). And, FTR, I don't feel you merit any blame here, SummerPhDv2.0 – only somebody watchlisting the article might have caught the Dec. 25 edits as date vandalism. And you are quite right in that we still can't be sure that the pre-Dec. 25 dates in the article are in fact "accurate" (as these are unverified as well), even though that is what they've been restored to currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's the "feeling" of a few editors that they're not needed - I could list hundreds of articles where they're not used. If you wish to change this in the MOS, then you need to hold a discussion and gain a consensus.

And I get it - you believe that you don't need to do research into edits you see, and believe that all IPs are vandals so you get to revert them without checking. Sorry - that's not how Wikipedia works. Especially when the information was not "new" - they were restoring a version that you yourself have restored previously. You say If an editor does not have a source, they should not be making the change. What about you? Best to change that outlook. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Change yours, sport – MOS's are guideline; WP:V is a policy. The latter trumps the former. By a lot. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So is WP:CONSENSUS. Nice try, though, brownie points for the attempt. -- Alex^TW 03:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:V is effectively the foundational principle of this project. It continually amazes me how you continually try to get around it when it comes to airdates. I don't get it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I have wanted to ask why it is that after an episode airs we remove its airdate citation. What harm is there in keeping it (especially if we make sure it's archived)? Once an episode has aired, it's pretty difficult to figure out when it first aired absent that kind of documentation. Also, and AlexTheWhovian correct me if I'm wrong (which I might be), but I think you've argued for keeping citations for cast list additions/membership (when there's a certain group that does the same thing: removes citations that back up that person's inclusion in the cast once episodes in which they appear have aired). If it's not Alex, I've definitely seen some editors argue for keeping them. I don't think it hurts to keep the citations in either case, but at least with cast membership you can figure that out simply by getting your hands on a copy of the episode(s) in question, because then you have a primary source (although the older and/or less popular a series is, the harder that route becomes). The airdates, though, aren't embedded in the episodes themselves, so I feel like keeping citations for them is a pretty sensible idea. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It becomes a near necessity 10, 20, 30 years later, that's for sure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why the citations are removed after an episode airs, but i believe the problem is that they don't look good in tables, right next to an episode title. This is the reason why in many other tables (example), the citation is placed by itself in the last cell of a row. Is this something we could do with the episode table as well? Another reason why i suspect the citation is removed after an episode has aired, is to make it easier to see which episode airs next, without looking at the air dates column. On the other hand, though rare, airdates-related vandalism is something that i have experienced (example), so i don't think references for episode titles and airdates are redundant in any other way. -- Radiphus 05:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Radiphus: Many of us prefer 'column references' in episode tables over 'row references' for precisely this reason – column refs cover everything in the column: both aired, and yet-to-air, episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, i prefer column references when possible as well, but it's not always possible and this is a problem. Are we going to have some series or season articles using column references and others row references? -- Radiphus 05:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Row-references seem to sometimes be necessary for yet-to-air episodes, but it's rarer that they're needed for aired episodes. It does happen sometimes (I've sometimes needed to, say, source an episode title to the WGAW database for an old TV series), but it doesn't seem to happen often enough to be a problem – usually column-refs are good enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Television ratings graph#Suggestions

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Television ratings graph#Suggestions. This discussion regards some changes i have suggested that should be made in the table formatting of the {{Television ratings graph}} template. -- Radiphus 06:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)