Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive - December 2011

Starting December 1st, there will be a month-long drive to reduce the backlog at Good Article nominations. With roughly 50 current nominations in the Theatre, film and drama section, I'm hoping editors from this project will want to participate - perhaps even stay to assist with other topics. Note that television article appear to dominate the nominations in this category. Please visit the drive's project page for details. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The drive has started, and WikiProject Military History is rockin' out on the reviews. Not so much with this project. I'd like to see a dent in the large number of TV-related nominations. Get to it, folks! AstroCog (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Never noticed this on the horizon but I'll start knocking them out tonight. GRAPPLE X 17:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for Editing

Hello, there is a communication theory called Cultivation Theory that is a part of this WikiProject Television. Will someone edit the page if you have time? Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation_theory Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel.l.marten (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Series premiere date

Disney often labels the first airing of the first episode of a new series as a "series preview", with the "official" series premiere occurring at a later date. Nickelodeon has also done it with programs such as The Penguins of Madagascar and Fish Hooks (and probably others), where they call the first episode a "sneak peak". The series premiere is always a different episode. This invariably results in an editing dispute over the first season premiere date; is it the "series preview/sneak peak" date or the "official" season premiere date? There is one such dispute happening at List of Austin & Ally episodes now. Disney advertised a full broadcast of the first episode, "Rockers & Writers" as a "preview" on 2 December, with the official premiere occurring on 4 December with "Kangaroos & Chaos".[1] Despite Disney marketing, common sense would seem to dictate that the season premiere date in the "series overview" table should be December 2, 2011 but, since this is a contentious issue that has occurred before and no doubt will again in the future, I was wondering what the opinions of the project are in cases like this. If the season premiere date is decided to be December 4, how do we handle episode episode numbering and the inevitable future change to the the season premiere date in the series overview table? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a convention I've never heard of before, but until an "official" numbering is given (by DVDs, say, which will presumably either include the "sneak peak" with the episodes, or as a special feature, allowing you to see if it's number one or not a number (but not a free man) and list it accordingly), then perhaps the old comic book technique of listing the sneak peak as number zero might work? The premiere date is assumed to be the date the pilot airs, and by extension, the first episode where there is no literal "pilot". I'd consider any previous footage shown to be a promotional thing and not the premiere. GRAPPLE X 11:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The "sneak peak" is never just a peak or a short preview, it's always a full episode. The comic book numbering system has been used at List of Fish Hooks episodes, where the first episode is numbered "0" despite sites like the Futon Critic, which I've always found fairly reliable, numbering the first episode as #101.[2] --AussieLegend (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The first episode is the first episode, regardless of what it is branded. Mention can be made in the broadcast section that it did not move to its regular time slot until the second episode, (or a week before the second episode as it may be). 117Avenue (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Question for project

Hi there I have come across a Good Article nomination for One Tree Hill (TV series). While one a very quick look through, it seems good. There is one striking thing missing. The final season starts in 2012. Would it be normal to nominate a series article for a GA review when its not complete. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA simply means it has "broad" coverage, not "comprehensive" coverage. If you feel like there are no major areas missing, then it's just fine. It wouldn't be the first show to get nominated/passed before it's completion. We've even had FA articles on shows that were still in production (though, I didn't agree with that because you cannot say it's comprehensive if it's still going on).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You can nominate anything as long as it is up to date. Shows like Sesame Street and The Simpsons are featured articles even though there is no end in sight. The same thing applies fo biographies. You don't have to wait for the person to die to nominate an article. --Maitch (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, show's that have been on for 2 decades or more are probably exceptions to the idea. I was thinking more about Lost, which was featured long before it ever should have been and eventually lost that status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Cast lists in infobox

There is a discussion underway at The Sopranos article about the use of a link to the cast section, rather than a listing of all the actors. Previously, there was a very long list of the main cast, which was removed (by me, after a discussion) several months ago and replaced with a link to the relevant section. I believe I have seen this in other articles which also had large cast lists. I would like some feedback from editors involved with this project, both on The Sopranos article in particular, and the general idea of using such links in infoboxes. This is the best place for such a general discussion to take place. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this approach taken in other series and possibly some films, too. I whole-heartedly agree with it, as it saves space, avoids common listing-order grievances, and encourages the improvement of the cast section through the extra attention drawn there. GRAPPLE X 04:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's actually mentioned at WP:MOSTV#Infobox, in the last line of the paragraph. It always comes down to consensus of the editors who watch the image in question, but it is mentioned in our MOS.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It would help if other voices could be heard on The Sopranos talk page, as the discussion is stymied. I think a link to a cast section is preferable to editors deciding on their own who the "most important" stars are, especially with shows with large ensemble casts. I am considering a similar move in regard to ER which has 25 names in the cast list in the infobox. Like other shows, NYPD Blue, for example, the show had an ensemble cast and a great many cast changes over the years. Any other thoughts on this? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidate: Animation

Portal:Animation is currently a featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of covers

Hi, I have a big problem that I would like it to be fixed. It is about DVD covers I have uploaded to the 24 (TV series) season articles. There has been DVD cover on all eight seasons, and now they all are deleted (see here). The main problem is that they are not even orphaned for seven days, they are just deleted, so am asking administrators to undelete those covers so I could put them where they belong, of course if that is possible.

Also, here it says that it was deleted because "Author requests deletion". I did not requested something like that.  InfamousPrince  10:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion because it took me a while to figure out what was going on, but I think I've worked most of it out. The infoboxes in the 24 season articles contained images of the cast prior to you adding DVD covers in August. The uploader of those images was contacted by another editor on his talk page two days ago,[3] and the eventual result of the discussion was that the cast images should be restored and that was done at each article today. I don't agree with the rationale that ultimately lead to this decision,[4] as DVD covers from the region of the country of the original run, rather than a cast photo, seems to be the convention, but that's another discussion. I can't explain why the administrator who notified you of the files' potential deletion in 7 days then immediately deleted all of the files or why he used the rationale "Author requests deletion", so I've asked him to comment.[5] --AussieLegend (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the response, and I guess that the only thing we can do right now is to wait his response, and then to figure out what to do next.  InfamousPrince  15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, as I stated on my talk page, what happened was last night on IRC I was chatting, and Steven Zhang asked for an admin to help him, to which I subsequently volunteered. He said he had some unused fair use images that he needed deleted, so as per standard procedure I tagged them for 7 day deletion. He then said that being that he was the uploader he wanted them deleted immediately under author request. After seeing from the image page that he was the only entry on the Image upload box I proceeded to batch delete them as author request. After looking some more I realize that he was not the first author of the image, but as the earlier revisions of the image were deleted on December 6th by Master of Puppets (summary: "Deleted old revision 20111206064609!24_Season_8_DVD_Cover.jpg: new version") it appeared that he was the only author. I now see why you received the upload deletion notices from Twinkle and not Steve (Whom I thought originally got them as would have been the case had he been the only author) but as you uploaded the first revision you were still the first entry in the history that Twinkle saw and thus you were correctly notified even though the image page didn't show you as an uploader due to the old version being deleted. I apologize for any misunderstanding, I thought it was a simple author requested deletion and as he was the only user in the upload history I didn't dig any further. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask :). Best, Mifter (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like you to undelete those images so I could put them back on the season articles, with uploading previous images that has been already there before he was uploaded new ones. Thank you in advance.  InfamousPrince  9:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So just to clarify before I go and undelete everything, you want the version that you uploaded to be undeleted with me leaving Steve's uploads deleted? Best, Mifter (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes.  InfamousPrince  17:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I must say that I have to disagree with the reinsertion of the DVD images here. The cast image have been in the infobox for years, the DVD images only inserted recently. I'll make the same argument that I did at my talk page, the problem with the images uploaded by InfamousPrince, they were of an awkward shape, too large under the non-free criterias, and with cover art representing a minority of the countries it was released in (Regions 2 and 4 use the same cover art). As we couldn't agree on which to use, we reverted back to the cast images, which was in place for years. I note that is topic is covered by a separate wikiproject, that is WP:24, so while I understand this project has guidelines, feel it is inappropriate for it to impose their ways of doing things on other projects. If you can make an argument in favour of why we should do things differently with the info odds apart from "Our MOS says so" and in favour of Region 1 covers apart from "It's an American show" (I refer to the infoboxes of House (season 1) to House (season 3) which alternates between DVD regions) then I am receptive, however I respectfully think the important issue here is article stability, as opposed to "my images got deleted". Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Images being too large is not an issue because it's easy to reduce image sizes. The argument about "cover art representing a minority of the countries it was released in" is specious at best. Region 1 DVD cover art is used in a lot of articles. The general convention seems to be that DVD cover art from the country of initial release is used. WP:24 is essentially a dead project and MOS:TV, which recommends DVD cover art but not cast images in the infobox, is what we should follow. That's not to say cast photos can't be used, but I've had arguments with fair-use nazis enforcers pedants (sorry I can't think of a word) claiming that cast photos can't be used in season articles. They seem to have no problems with DVD covers though. We don't need to include DVD covers from any specific region; we should use what's best for the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with AussieLegend. And also, I will put those DVD images back, would you like it or not.  InfamousPrince  19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

@InfamousPrince, Stating that you will add the images back whether I like it or not is not in the spirit of our collaborative nature on Wikipedia. We should work through and discuss our disagreements, as I am attempting to do here. @AussieLegend, WP:24 is rather inactive, yes, but there still are participants (like myself) that still work on the articles. The cast was in the info box for many years, only recently changed to DVD cover art. The fact that Region 1 cover art is used in many articles doesn't hold a lot of water. Most editors on Wikipedia are from the United States, naturally they will upload their own cover images. I also Note that nowhere in MOS:TV does it say the DVD image should be from where it was originally released. The cast images being in the infobox also negates the issue of too many non-free images in an article. As you saw on my talk page, I suggested using Region 2 cover art, because it more widely represents the cover art of the DVD release of the series across the globe, but doesn't have the issues presented by the Region 4 cover (large classification information). As we couldn't agree on the issue, we reverted back to the cast images, which is how the articles were originally. My point really is, if it wasn't broken, why fix it? The cast images were in place for many years, and I think that we could use a hand with the actual substance of the articles themselves as opposed to squabbling over what image to use in the infobox. I encourage you to discuss this with me, and if we cannot agree, then we should seek dispute resolution. But I emphasize that stating you will do it regardless of whether I like it or not is not the right way to go about this. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from the US and I think Region 1 DVD covers should be used in the articles in question. Use of region 1 covers is consistent with other information in the articles. We use US air dates because the program first aired in the US, US ratings are used because that's where the program first aired so using R1 covers seems only natural. Wikipedia is a work in progress, there's nothing that says once an image is placed in an article it has to stay there forever so the "if it wasn't broken, why fix it?" line really doesn't fly. The cast is not the subject of critical commentary in the season articles. The photos do nothing to aid the reader in identifying the different cast. They don't really need to be there. Admittedly, neither do the DVD covers; neither the cast photos or the DVD covers need to be in the articles at all. However, use of DVD covers is more consistent across Wikipedia and, as the fair-use enforcers will tell you, cast photos that depict actors in normal street clothes generally fail WP:NFCC#1. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, not really. In regards to NFCC#1, images of cast in character historically has been OK. For example, we use the image of Kiefer Sutherland portraying Jack Bauer as opposed to an image of just Kiefer Sutherland because it shows him in character, significantly different to just an image of Kiefer, and to which a normal text description of his appearance would not suffice, thus the need for an image. This is to a less extent applicable in the season articles, however. I try to take the high road at all times, and I while I still believe in my point of view, think that compromise for the better good of the wiki is more desirable. How about we use promotional posters for each of the eight seasons in the infobox? I see that is the most recommended option to use in the infobox as per the MOS, and I could easily enough locate some posters. Does that sound good? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at the Glee character articles where images of the cast in character have repeatedly been deleted because of NFCC#1. In the 24 season articles there is no connection between the cast list and the cast photo. It's not just "to a less extent applicable", it's completely non-applicable so WP:NFCC#8 also applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The 24 season articles are in a pretty horrendous state at the moment, partly due to a lack of editors, lack of free time on my part as well as a focus on other 24 articles (having got 24 (TV series) and 24: Redemption to GA) so the season articles have been low on my priority list. At present I agree that the cast images add little to the season articles, though disagree with regards to the pages for individual characters. That said, as we are probably very familiar with, debates on the non-free content criteria can last until the heat death of the universe, and isn't the primary issue we are addressing here. My suggestion is we use a promotional poster for each season instea, preferred by MOSTV. I am sure I will be able to find a few. Does that work for all of you? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You say that it is not spirit of our collaborative nature, and yet you first didn't wanted to discuss about that but nevertheless you chose to present yourself as a uploader of all those DVD images that you could request their deletion. You definitely didn't thought would I liked it or not, so don't tell me what is the right way.  InfamousPrince  20:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The old revisions of the DVD covers were deleted as they were just that, old revisions of a file, and non-free old revisions of files are deleted, thus making me the uploader of the DVD images as they were (Region 4 covers). As there was an agreement amount myself and the other user to re-use the cast images, I asked an administrator to delete the covers, moreso because I saw no alternate use for the images, and did not see a use for them within the next 7 days. We agreed to return the articles to the state they were in, Asof August, and at is what I did. I did not foresee any objection over the issue, and objection has been raised, so I am trying to discuss it with you here. If we cannot come to an agreement then we may have to pursue dispute resolution using another forum. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I must admit to still being a little concerned about the deletion process. According to the administrator you couldn't be bothered tagging the images for deletion, which only takes a few seconds using Twinkle, and would have been a lot easier than finding an administrator and explaining which images that you wanted deleted. You seemed to be in an awful hurry to circumvent the deletion process, which is what ultimately led to this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise, the deletion was a little out of process, my only real defense is that I've been editing the 24 articles for years, and they have generally been rather quite and sans-drama. When I was approached by an editor on my talk page and we came to an agreement, it seemed that the issue was settled. Him and myself are the two main users that edit the 24 articles, and I felt that a 7 day period wouldn't change the fact that images would be used again. In my mind, it seemed like it was very unlikely, and thus I requested Mifter to delete them. It was more the fact that admin backlogs are massive at the moment. I didn't really put a lot of thought into it, and didn't think anyone would have any real issues with it. That was my reasoning at the time, but I could have definitely tagged the images using twinkle, yes. I will take this on board in future and I suppose realise that others do edit and watch the 24 articles, not just me. I mean no disrespect to InfamousPrince and apologise if I upset them for the deletion of their images, but again emphasize that due to the quiet nature of the 24 articles, did not think it would be a problem. I am fully open to a trout regarding the image deletion, for not 100% thinking it through, but hope we can move on and work together. I would much like to work together in improving these articles. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your response seems reasonable. You seem to have taken on board what I've said so I think we can put this part to bed. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

First, original uploader is the one who have created the page by uploading a file, which in this case is me, and you have only uploaded new version, so it does not matter if my revision were deleted, you can't request deletion if I am original uploader. Second, I don't want to argument with you about this anymore because am already tired, and I don't understand why you have the problem with having DVD cover there where it should be, like everywhere else. And I personally think that the cast image should only be included on the original article, because there should be only original cast members, not the ones who came after first season.  InfamousPrince  21:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have discussed it with you in the first place in regards to deleting your original uploads, I apologise for that. That said, different WikiProjects have different conventions and work different ways. My argument is the simple one of least harm. The articles were stable before, and weren't broken in the first place. We have tried to discuss the issue hee without result, so the best option would be to take it to a dispute resolution forum and get outside input. As for no cast images apart from season 1, this wouldn't really work. Unlike many TV shows, the main cast of 24 often changed quite a lot between seasons, with many major characters not appearing till later seasons (for example, Allison Taylor who was portrayed by Cherry Jones) won an Emmy award for her performance. Other characters who had a major impact in the series didn't appear until later seasons. My argument really is, if it's not broken, why do we need to fix it? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at season talk pages to see if there was discussion about uploading DVD covers, and there was nothing about that, so I uploaded them thinking that it would be good thing because as I said, there should be DVD covers, as everywhere else. This is my last post about this, so am asking you to let me retrieve Region 1 DVD covers as I have uploaded at the first time, and put cast images below as I did.  InfamousPrince  22:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As I feel we have not been able to come to a consensus here, I have opened a request for opinions on this issue at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you've given this discussion a chance, as I've stated at DRN. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside opinion by Chzz

...was posted here [6] but I should have posted it on DRN, so moved there [7]  Chzz  ►  04:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

So the main concern is deciding on what image to use for the infobox. Well, two of the original arguments for the change aren't concerns at all–images can be resized and I doubt the original covers were that large anyway, and for them being "an awkward shape", they're simply a view that shows off the spine of the DVD which is very common for DVD covers shown in press releases. The argument that the region 2 and 4 covers cover more countries is a bit original research in terms of knowing what the cover art actually looks like. Region 2 covers the Middle East and Greenland, but do you know what those 24 DVD covers look like? Probably not. Region 2 covers Japan, but they use their own cover art. Not sure what DVD region Germany is in, but they use region 1 artwork. So that argument is a bit shaky. But, you can easily argue for region 1 covers: 24 is an American series, most (if not all) content presently in the season articles is American-driven: air dates, viewership, reception and awards. It's also pretty much convention to use the DVD artwork from the respective region of where the show originates. Sure, some articles might be different, but that's a select few mostly of which the editors for those article don't really care what image is used. As for using promotional posters, that's a good idea, but what's the difference between those and the region 1 DVD covers when they're mainly the same image? If we go with that, here's a link that has all the posters. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I took a look at 24 Wikia and based the cover art off of that. Historically they've been pretty accurate with 24 stuff, so I took the images at face value. Posters are preferred by the MOS and eliminates the region argument. That link is a nice find, I'll upload the posters today and hope we can put this issue to bed. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 18:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've uploaded the DVD posters and added them to the articles. I think we can close this as resolved now. I apologise for acting quickly and am happy that in the end we have been able to come to a resolution. I hope in future we can work together on improving these articles, as a lot of work needs to be done on these articles. I would love to see 24 (TV series) on the main page one day as an FA. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Need help with an episode list

For nearly a month I've been working on a List of That Girl episodes, but I'm afraid I'm going to need some help with the formatting. I tried to add some episodes that were formatted more correctly with this edit, but it didn't work, because the correctly formatted version automatically went to the bottom of the page. I'm also trying to select color bars that I think are more appropriate for the series, i.e.; some soft pastel sort of things. ----DanTD (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Page for article not passing WP:GNG

I have created User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Alfonso Gomez-Rejon. It is questionable whether the article passes WP:GNG. I started a conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Alfonso_Gomez-Rejon_.3F that has not gotten much feedback and none since I have done the sandbox creation. I need some more feedback on whehter this article is ready for article space either for WP:FILMMAKER #3 or for WP:IAR rationales.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would wait for further responses, but today his big holiday commercial goes national. Based on this response at WT:FILM and considering WP:IAR, I am moving to main space.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, holiday commercial or not, the article doesn't make a strong case that he's received significant coverage himself. The majority of the references are about his works, or projects he has worked on. In fact, I didn't see one reference out of all of them that is an independent and reliable source of information about just him as a subject. And no, I don't count IMDB or the NYTIMES profile. That stuff is boiler-plate anyway. I don't care one way or the other - I'm done messing with notability vis-a-vis BLPs; the inclusionists in this area are just too insufferable. Given that, I doubt anybody will mount a successful challenge. The article certainly looks good, and not like the kind of vanity stub that raises red flags. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be tempted to keep it incubated until the relevant awards season for the television work he's done recently rolls around. Even one Emmy nomination or the like would probably bring in some degree of third-party discussion you could use. I'm also wondering if DVD releases for Glee and American Horror Story might contain commentary by him which could be useful. GRAPPLE X 17:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I already spent the morning making it live in mainspace by linking about two dozen articles to it. Like I said initially, it truly does not pass WP:GNG, but I think this is sort of an WP:IAR situation. It feels right in the main space to me. As AstroCog stated, it is not likely to be successfully challenged at AFD. Thanks for the feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Designated Market Area (DMA)

I was trying to find out the list of DMA (Designated Market Area), but unfortunately the list is inconsistent between articles.

• List of ABC television affiliates (table)
• List of CBS television affiliates (table)
• List of NBC television affiliates (table)
• List of Fox television affiliates (table)
• List of MyNetworkTV affiliates
• (List of The CW Television Network affiliates doesn't have the DMA #)

If I take for example my nearest market, Burlington-Plattsburgh, it's listed as #92 on ABC list, #93 on CBS list, #92 on NBC list, #95 on Fox list, and #95 on MyNet list. So, which one is it? And there are also problems higher the list, like Denver and Miami which are listed #16, #17 or #18, depending on which article you consult. A nice update or a link to the latest DMA list would be appreciated. Thanks. InMontreal (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguating TV films

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Disambiguation between feature films and TV films regarding the disambiguation of television films; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) advocate making a distinction between TV films and feature films, but the reasons and the criteria for when to do this are not clear. The guidelines could ideally do with being made clearer, so since there is some overlap between the film and TV projects then your input would be welcome. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Soap opera request

There is currently a discussion taking place at your sister project WP:SOAPS could do with more views. It is about fancruft and infoboxes.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please participate in the FAC review for The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.

I nominated this article a week ago at FAC, and have so far received no feedback. I'd appreciate comments, feedback, and (hopefully!) support for this article, which I have put a lot of work into. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Smash Image

I uploaded my first image to the Smash page, and I wanted to make sure all the copyright information is correct. I think I have most of it in line, but could somebody take a look at it?

--Kelseyss (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Can editors offer their opinions in this dispute?

An editorial dispute over a TV show's influence is taking place here. Can editors who read this participate and offer their opinions? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fringe Task Force

I notice there is no task force for the Fringe article. Why exactly is that? Akihironihongo (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of the introduction of television in countries

This interesting list suffers from a lack of references and many, many mistakes. The list requires a completely new research of the dates. I have collected some sources which may the useful: At first, The Statesman's Yearbook and the Europa World Year Book, very reputable almanacs, also TIME Almanac with Information Please and World Almanac may be useful. Unfortunately I do not have an own access to the online archives, so I cannot do that work. pressreference.com, culturalprofiles.net or [mapsofworld.com] (blocked by spamfilter) are much less reputable and should be used only if no other sources are available. Then, there are several "historical dictionaries", available also for minor countries in asia and africa, and the Country Studies(Area Handbooks. Perhaps the is someone here who wants to improve that list.--Antemister (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Queen mtv icon

2011 Queen announced mtv icon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.22.208 (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Character infobox template changes

Just wanted to notify people of a discussion taking place here about changes to the template mainly about the removal of the last appearance field. D4nnyw14 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

One-season show, THREE articles

I've just gotten hold of the episodes of Cops L.A.C., an Australian proecdural series that lasted a single season of 13 episodes. Imagine my surprise (horror) to find three articles written about the show: Cops L.A.C., List of Cops L.A.C. episodes, and Cops L.A.C. (season 1). Why is this kind of article hierarchy needed here? It's not like the show aired for years. MOS:TV recommends creating season pages after about 80 episodes have aired. 13 episodes were made for this show. Surely the season page isn't needed because the cast list is already in the "main" page, and the episode descriptions can be moved to the list of episodes pages. However, in saying that, Cops L.A.C. isn't that big, and the summaries aren't that long, so sticking the Episode List table in that page and just having one article for the series is completely feasible.

Just trying to see what others' opinions are before I go prodding. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW.... I'd boldly merge Cops L.A.C. (season 1) to Cops L.A.C. and redirect w/o a merge List of Cops L.A.C. episodes to that section rather than PROD. - J Greb (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd just merge them all into Cops L.A.C., leaving the other two to redirect to an episode list section of that article. GRAPPLE X 16:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Episode lists and season pages

The project needs to be more vigilant in making sure season articles are not created too prematurely. There are too many current shows that have split into numerous articles where it just isn't necessary:

• The Good Wife already has The Good Wife (season 1), The Good Wife (season 2), and The Good Wife (season 3), as well as List of The Good Wife episodes. Each article for the season gives a cast list and the obligatory episode table with summaries. There is also a bunch of tables for US, UK and Irish ratings that are so poorly presented the reader cannot put them into context. Only 59 episodes of The Good Wife have aired.
• Harry's Law, 22 episodes aired, we have List of Harry's Law episodes, and that has already spun off to Harry's Law (season 1) and Harry's Law (season 2)
• Mike & Molly, 35 episodes, has List of Mike & Molly episodes, Mike & Molly (season 1), and Mike & Molly (season 2). We get to know what the "nightly rank" each episode was in Australia. Unfortunately we don't know what shows aired on other networks in that timeslot, or even the entire evening.
• Hawaii Five-0 (the new one): in its 2nd season, with 38 episodes. We have List of Hawaii Five-0 episodes and Hawaii Five-0 (season 1) (with a massive non-free picture), but not season 2 page making the list of page look odd with one season without summaries and the other with.
• Man Up (TV series) cancelled after 8 episodes, List of Man Up episodes has another 5 unaired episodes listed, unsourced. Each summary is no more than 2 sentences, and the table could easily be merged with the parent.
• Raising Hope, on its 2nd season, with 32 episodes aired, and we've got List of Raising Hope episodes, Raising Hope (season 1) and Raising Hope (season 2). Doesn't {{episode list}} have space for additional unnamed columns for editors to give additional information in the table? I don't understand why we have a second table at the bottom of the page for "18-49 (Rating/Share)" (who knows what that means, though?)
• Parenthood (2010 TV series), 3 seasons, 46 episodes, and we have List of Parenthood episodes, Parenthood (season 1), Parenthood (season 2), and Parenthood (season 3)
• NCIS: Los Angeles: 59 episodes, in its 3rd season, List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes, NCIS: Los Angeles (season 1), NCIS: Los Angeles (season 2) and NCIS: Los Angeles (season 3). Each article has a one-sentence summary for each episode.
• 90210 (TV series) 80 (!!!) episodes, in its 4th season. List of 90210 episodes, 90210 (season 1), 90210 (season 2), 90210 (season 3) and 90210 (season 4). Finally a set of articles that gets it right!!!! :)
• Glee (TV series) 3 seasons, 53 eps. List of Glee episodes, Glee (season 1), Glee (season 2), Glee (season 3). Another set of articles that gets it right, although the episode count is a bit low, and as I recall, was much lower when they were initially split. Season 1 page is a FL, season 2 doesn't look far off it.
• Modern Family, 60 episodes 3 seasons, List of Modern Family episodes, Modern Family (season 1), Modern Family (season 2), Modern Family (season 3). Simple, 1 or 2 sentence episode summaries, but there's a fair bit of prose about developement, writing, cast, reception, etc -- much of it, however is lifted from the parent page, or is less detailed than the parent page, resulting in the reader being sent in circles to find all the necessary information
• The Mentalist, 85 episodes 4 seasons, List of The Mentalist episodes, The Mentalist (season 1) and The Mentalist (season 2) have some pretty good episode summaries, but that is the only content. The Mentalist (season 3) and The Mentalist (season 4) have poor, short summaries and nothing else. Given that there is no other content, they really all should be merged back into the main list.
• Nikita (TV series), 2 seasons, 32 episodes. List of Nikita episodes, Nikita (season 1) and Nikita (season 2). Decent summaries, but then for season 1 there's also a big section called "Plot" that just repeats everything. It's also got short Production and Accolades sections that repeats the parent article.

MOS:TV says it may be necessary to split the list into season pages for lengthy series, typically those with over 80 episodes, but current practice is to split way before then. Either pages need merging or the MOS needs updating to reflect practices, rather than common sense. Also, looking through all these pages made me feel like I was tripping. Where in the MOS:TV does it say we should be giving all these seasons different colours just because they're similar to a colour on a DVD box? We're not at the M&Ms factory, and we're not "Skittlepedia". {{Episode list}} and {{Infobox tvseason}} have default shades, why can't we just stick with them? We're the only Project that allows its authors to switch the colours on these templates willy nilly with each article. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that season pages shouldn't be made to quickly. Most season pages never have enough information, which is why I worked on all of those 90210 articles. It's the same with character articles, but people just seem to bring the articles back when they're redirected. Jayy008 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It really just depends how the articles are handled. Season articles which give pertinent information for that season, such as new casting decisions, moving shooting locations, recurring characters specific to that season, or any number of things which are better handled on a specific level and not as part of a whole-series overview, those are the ones which are warranted and useful. For instance, The X-Files (season 8) deals with the replacement of the series' lead role with a new actor, something specific to that season. However, with no significant information given or cited for individual seasons, List of Miami Vice episodes is simply used to encompass all of the series' five seasons together. Content is the key, rather than the running length of the series in question. GRAPPLE X 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a mixture of both. Most of the pages I mentioned (not 90210, Glee or Modern Family) have nothing but a bulleted cast list (the parent page has more information), and episode tables with 1- or 2-sentence plot summaries. And that's it. Nothing else. The occasional page has a second table with ratings for a non-native country and gives no context. The Miami Vice list is something of a rarity, I think, being that it is 100+ episodes without specific season articles.

The MOS probably needs to make it clearer that season pages should be created for lengthier shows with 80+ episodes, but only if they would contain other detailed information for that season that isn't discussed at the top-level page, and only if the summaries are closer to the 200-word mark than a 20-word sentence. Something needs to be written into the MOS to say basically, don't do this. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that for a season article to be warranted, and not just cruft, it needs to have that kind of information on it, but if it's a good size with citations and relevance, it'll not matter how long the series was - I could probably come up with two distinct and GA-class articles for the two seasons of Twin Peaks, which is 30 episodes long. When that information is not present, and not likely to be (I've seen a lot of Glee stuff on GAN and DYK in the past so I assume there are active editors working on the subject, but there's bound to be other examples bereft of aid), then I'd say be bold and propose merges. For small shows, one or two seasons long, merge into the show's article; for longer ones, merge to a "List of [x] episodes" article. GRAPPLE X 02:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Peppa Pig episode list

I visited Peppa Pig: Episode & DVD lists today, being redirected from List of Peppa Pig episodes. I found a number of things wrong with this page that the Project might want to look into. Details at Talk:Peppa Pig: Episode & DVD lists. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The Singing Office

I started a stub for The Singing Office and I plan on expanding it more. Since I don't have any experience creating articles on major shows because they usually already exist, I was wondering if anyone from this Wikiproject would like to help with it. SL93 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

File:I Love Lucy Titlecard.png and File:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg

This image is under review in WP:Non-free content review#File:I Love Lucy Titlecard.png. They said that this image is too irreplaceable and that file:ILoveLucyTitleScreen.jpg is irreplaceable (after recovery), even with the logo ineligible for copyrights. Even if this image is irreplaceable, can anybody involve create an SVG version of the logo without replacing the non-free image? --George Ho (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some help at WP:NFCR

There's an issue raised by some questions on the infobox images for TV show articles. [8]. The short question is: if it is possible to make free (as in speech) logo of a TV's title from its title card (as can be done from the "I Love Lucy" titlecard), is this an "equivalent" free replacement (per NFCC#1) for what appears to be the typical use of the show's title card? I recommend responding there for simplicity. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Jericho episode articles need rescuing

At the moment, every episode of the Jericho (TV series), linked from List of Jericho episodes, has its own article. Several of these are quite elaborate; however most are only plot recaps, with little sourced information about production, reception, reviews, or any third party sources. So they are at threat of being merged into the list article for lack of sourcing or notability. See Talk:List_of_Jericho_episodes#Jericho_episode_articles_being_deleted. I've managed to hold back the last attempt, but if the articles are not brought up to standard, they probably will not survive much longer. Barsoomian (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Commonname etc.

I'm not sure if I've brought this up before, if so then please let me know. I'm curious about naming of characters. On 90210 a characters birth name is "Erin Silver" but that character has always been called "Silver" on the show and that's how she's labelled on press releases from The CW and on their website. Also on the same series, "Ivy Sullivan" is labelled as just "Ivy" on the press releases. How should we label them here? Jayy008 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I would go with surnames for them. Use the full name at first mention, then the surname from then on. In-show conventions aren't always the best route, as you'll often find characters commonly called one thing by some other characters, and another by another set—Deputy Brennan in Twin Peaks, for instance, is split between "Andy" and "Brennan" depending on who's speaking to him. GRAPPLE X 16:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made myself more clear. I mean in the character box. or in "starring" sections on individual season pages. Table type things. Jayy008 (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In that case, use the name exactly how it's given in any relevant credits. If the character's name isn't mentioned in the show's credits, then use their full name where possible. GRAPPLE X 16:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And we ignore press release/website information etc? Just clarifying... Jayy008 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

An official website or release would count as "any relevant credits", obviously. GRAPPLE X 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So then we use the name the official website/press release uses? That's my question in it's entirety. Jayy008 (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The full name they give, yes. If they refer to "Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo" as just "Joey", it's still going to be "Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo" for any lists or accreditation, but if that's the only place that a full name is found then that's fine to use as a source for it. GRAPPLE X 20:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I could have sworn that you're only mandated to use the "surname" in follow-up mentionings for real life people. In fiction, you just need to be consist in what you use (e.g., if you refer to the character as Buffy, instead of Summers, then always use Buffy).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a hard and fast rule for which to use, but it always irked me to see, in one article, some characters referred to by surname and others by first name—especially since that habit usually differentiates along gender lines, with men's surnames and women's first names used. I'd much rather see all of one or all of another, and all surname seems a lot more formal. GRAPPLE X 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My issue is about a nickname. "Silver" is a nickname and a last name, so I use that for Commonname and PR and website listings, but obviously it looks tidier to use the full name. So in my particular cases above, what would ya'll use? Jayy008 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of me says it's fine to just say "Silver", but with other "Silvers" on the page, I'd say it's probably best to say "Erin" so as not to create confusion. It helps that you point out that she is commonly referred to as just "Silver", but knowing that she has a brother named David Silver, it just seems weird.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I will use the full names then, to avoid confusion. Jayy008 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help on Sam Malone of Cheers

I am still working on this article. Nevertheless, if you want to help out, MLA style is preferred; no citation templates, please. Just Google 'MLA style' or related; otherwise, use http://www.dmoz.org to search MLA. Anyway, I don't know if any fictional background of him is relevant, but the prominent breakthroughs were his relationship with Diane Chambers and with Rebecca Howe, his alcoholism, and his sex addiction. What can we do with his early life, ownership of Cheers, and baseball career? --George Ho (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

iCarly seasons

Some season confusion has cropped up, along with issues concerning technical matters, see Talk:ICarly (season 4)#Move? -- 76.65.128.132 (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Conversation (and page) was moved, to Talk:ICarly (season 3), and hopefully resolved. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 11:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Entertainment Now

Bad news for ratings here. "Your Entertainment Now" no longer has a domain name, it says it's waiting to be renewed for deleted. I guess we should wait to see what happens but anytime TVBTN hasn't had the final numbers available—that's what I see in articles. It's going to take a lot of work removing it all. Jayy008 (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jurassic Fight Club RfC

I have proposed that the Inaccuracies section of Jurassic Fight Club be removed. Anyone interested is free to participate in the discussion at Talk:Jurassic Fight Club. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Top 10 Espionage Shows

Can anyone point me to some Category:Espionage television series that have finished in the top 10 in the ratings? Which one was most recent?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just guessing here, but I would assume that 24 and The Avengers might have managed it. Maybe Mission Impossible? A lot of the other stuff looks either cult or outright obscure. Perhaps look into Danger Man, The Equalizer and The Professionals in terms of UK viewer figures, though given their age there would only have been a much smaller selection of readily-available channels (pre-1982 there were only three non-subscription channels in the UK, and still only four until 1997), so I don't know how much value a "top 10" would be there, if there even was one. GRAPPLE X 20:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Wanted: Bigger boat

I recently started working on a draft version of List of writers of The X-Files, which can be seen here. I really think I've bitten off more than I can chew here—citing individual episode credits is going to result in several hundred footnotes, with many of those cited several times; although I've managed to alleviate some need for this thanks to an index page in one of the print sources, which only covers two and a half seasons. Does this kind of thing actually need to be cited, though? Given that each of the episodes is linked and provides full credits, or redirects to a season article which does so, I'm wondering if there's that much need to cite this one. Also, the initial "summary" table is too long and narrow—I'd ideally like to split it in two and sit them side by side, so it takes up a greater width and lesser height; however, my attempt to do this based on nesting two tables within a larger table just plain didn't work. Does anyone else know how this might be achieved? Any help here would be appreciated. GRAPPLE X 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Also starring

I was wondering if there is any consensus on how to treat cast credited as "also starring". This is prompted by the the continued crediting of Brian Dietzen as "also starring" in NCIS. For those not familiar with the program, the opening credits start and then list Mark Harmon, Michael Weatherly, Cote de Pablo, Pauley Perrette and Sean Murray in that order. This is then followed by with Rocky Carroll and David McCallum", Executive Producer Chas. Floyd Johnson, Created By Donald P. Bellisario & Don McGill. After the credits end the episode title is shown. Then Also Starring Brian Dietzen is typicall shown, after which guest stars etc are shown. Dietzen has been listed as "also starring" since season 6, but has never been added to the actual opening credits along with other cast members. Should he be treated as a recurring character or as main cast? Being placed just before guest stars but after the EP, creators and the episode title, he's not really being treated as main cast, but more as an elevated guest star, so I'm not sure what to do. We've been crediting himas a recurring character but this has changed in recent weeks, without discusssion. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I may have been able to answer my own question. The most recent press releases still list him as "recurring guest cast".[9][10] --AussieLegend (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would probably go with listing him as "starring". The people that make the press releases are not the same people that handle the credits of the show. If the show lists him as "also starring" then all that means is that he just doesn't receive opening credits billing. On House, several characters were listed as "also starring" for several seasons until they changed the opening title sequence, but they were still considered one of the stars of the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

NCIS has changed its opening credits several times previously, to cater for Sasha Alexander's departure, Lauren Holly's inclusion and when her character was killed, and when Rocky Carroll arrived, to name a few. All of those occurred in the first five seasons, very quickly after the actor's change of status. This is the fourth season in which Dietzen has been credited as "Also starring" and the fact that the credits haven't changed in all that time, as well as the positioning of his name after the episode title, reinforce what the press releases say. He's also not credited in every episode, only in those in which he appears, which is inconsistent with somebody in a starring role. Lauren Holly and Rocky Carroll don't appear in every episode but they are credited in every episode. Dietzen really does seem to be recurring guest cast who is more than a regular guest star but not quite in a starring role. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's an inconsistency in how things are billed. Like I said, House did the same thing, but press released indicated that the actors playing Taulb and 13 were considered "stars" of the show. It's a contract thing. With Holly, her appearing in the opening credits guarantees that she receives a paycheck all the time. In general, if they are "also starring", I've always considered that to be a series regular. But, as I said, every show is different. On Smallville, all recurring guests were listed as "Guest stars", while single appearances were "special guests". So, it's just how each show decides to handle it. Trust your gut. If you prefer to use the press release, that should be fine, though I suspect that there might be dissention when IPs are seeing "starring" after his name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Does WikiProject Television have any notability criteria regarding contestants for the Pop Idol franchise? Kingjeff (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Open RM for Hikaru Sulu

* (Discuss) – Hikaru Sulu → Sulu (Star Trek) Kauffner (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Star Trek: The Original Series/archive1

Star Trek: The Original Series is reviewed and must be fixed, according to Sjones23. For skilled writers, you can do an introduction consisted of three or four paragraphs. --George Ho (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of a television show

Hi! I'm working on User:WhisperToMe/Little Fatty's Food Diary - It's a cooking program that aired in Mainland China. What other information would be useful before one says "okay, it's notable! Let's move it into the mainspace?" - I would like to add content proving this TV show's notability before I move it into the mainspace. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Open RfC - How to handle season splits at List of iCarly episodes

I've opened an RfC at Talk:List of iCarly episodes#Request for Comment - Splitting seasons. Comments would be greatly appreciated. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability of television network

Hi again! I'd also like for people to look at the article on the television network China Food TV:

• User:WhisperToMe/China Food TV

So far it's heavy on primary sources, but I'm trying to get more secondary sources

Also I can confirm that "China Food TV USA" does air in San Francisco!

http://titantv.com/programming/channel.aspx/callsign/KMTP-DT/channel/32/major/0/minor/0/cid/14238/sid/74857/network/IND/pt/4/hd/1/lid/b1cf03cf-b3b0-4390-b601-e8860f001e5e/date/20120121/

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Tom Cudahy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tom Cudahy 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/Tom Cudahy 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Past Tense in Character Description

Perhaps this is dealt with somewhere, but I can't find it so I'll ask here.

I notice that the past tense is used when talking about characters that have been killed off, eg Chef or Bleeding Gums Murphy. Now, even though they are not alive any more on the show, they do exist as characters. The show is not real life and the old episodes do still exist for people to watch.

Also, if this is the practice for shows - what about comics? Why is Dream referred to in the present tense?

By extension, any character within a one-off film or story should also be referred to in the past tense, eg. Tony Montana or The Comedian - and especially the latter, since he dies before the story's even begun! (& especially since the story was also originally a series) AND, if the manual of style is different for comics and for film, what to do with the Comedian, since Watchmen was both?!

But let's pick up on that - once a show gets canceled or is completed, in theory all characters become equally "non existent", whether they were alive at the last episode or not. What then? Go back through the whole of Wikipedia and change everything to past tense? Or change it all to present tense, since it's assumed that all literature transcends time? But by that logic, Chef and Bleedin' Gums shouldn't be in the past tense in the first place!

Or what if someone writes a show where an asteroid destroys the earth in the last episode. Should ALL characters then be in the past tense, since they all died within the show?

And, using past tense is quite a major spoiler. I know, WP doesn't care about spoilers, but considering the fact that in this case the spoiler occurs in the second word of the article ("Chef was a character...") is a bit full-on! Seriously, if someone told me that (a certain character who gets killed in the last episode) "was" a character on The Wire...while I was still on, say, episode 34...i'd be PISSED!

So, please, someone explain the workings of this to me, as I can't figure out the logic. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When talking out-of-universe, characters should always be discussed in the present tense. ("The Comedian is a character from Watchman...). As long as the work was published, the character will always exist so it is present tense. The only time in the out-of-universe example where past tense makes sense is for a character that was created or designed but never made it to a published work.

When talking in-universe (in the context of a plot or character summary), a character that has died, taken out of the plot, or otherwise no longer mentioned can be mentioned in the past tense in the context of the present-tense, on-going plot, when talking about a larger work. --MASEM (t) 17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help on Sam and Diane

I am expanding an article about a fictional couple of Cheers; however, helping me expand this article is nice. Nevertheless, I don't need storyline expansion, as anything about Sam and Diane should be relevant; copy-editing would be nice. What do you say? --George Ho (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Character infoboxes

I know there are many templates for characters now (all pointlessly created by Wren Valmont). I'm confused by which one to use, shouldn't there just be one? Jayy008 (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The primary one, i believe, is Template:Infobox character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fringe (TV series) taskforce proposal

I'm proposing a new taskforce for the television series Fringe. Interested editors can find the proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fringe (TV series). I hope it goes successfully. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Television will have interest in putting on events related to women's roles in TV; as actors, performers, tv hosts, news reporters, writers, etc. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've a few articles I was planning to take to GA that could wait to March, definitely. I'll throw up a note on WP:TXF to see what relevant articles we can dig out over there as well. GRAPPLE X 21:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome Grapple! Thanks for postponing the GA's. Perhaps when some brainstorming is solidified we can maybe mention it here? Wikipedia:WikiWomen's_History_Month#Upcoming_online_events That'd be awesome. Can't wait to see the GA's :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Have already posted a preliminary list of articles to work on at the project's talk page. I'll stick up a finalised list soon, maybe make a subpage on the project to organise it better. GRAPPLE X 03:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD on List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes

List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes has been nominated once again for AFD. The discussion can be found here. Input from project members would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Friday night death slot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Friday night death slot 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/Friday night death slot 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect merger

A recent decision was made to merge The Front Page (Diff'rent Strokes) into the Diff'rent Strokes article. To me, it would make much more sense to merge it into List of Diff'rent Strokes episodes. Why didn't anybody consider this during the discussion? ----DanTD (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of merge material, interest or experience? Anyway, just merge where you think it is appropriate. The AfD is not binding in merge targets (per e.g. WP:BOLD and the free-content licence), as an AFD-result this topic just shouldn't have its own article. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, striktly speaking, the AfD was closed by a non-admin (who might not have known that LoE's are usually a better merge target than the main article). You can revert his closure and ask someone else to close it, but the "merge" result seems pretty firm. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Sam and Diane for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam and Diane 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/Sam and Diane 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. --George Ho (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Fictional couples

I have created this Project proposal that must cover fictional couples of any fixed medium, print or electronic, such as soap opera couples, Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, and Sam and Diane. I wonder if you can join in the linked title rather than here. --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Trivial articles on trivial television articles...

This all started because Free Love (Cold Case) popped up on Special: NewPages list tonight. I clicked through to the article and I see 3 sentences of prose and 3 screens full of bulleted lists (Cast, Music, Notes, etc.). The entire page is referenced to a single tv.com entry, except for one citation to a ratings aggregator. This article has basically no reason for existence that I can see—the individual episode has no notability at all that I can find (and I looked). I've always 'hurrumphed' at these kind of "articles" but never bothered doing anything with/about them. But this time I wandered into Category: 2010 television episodes, and... wow. 29 articles on Chuck episodes which are 99% plot summary and 1 sentence of "Critical Review" sourced to an IGN review. Totally unsourced articles like Epiphany (Desperate Housewives) that are 80% plot summary and 20% trivia.

To be totally clear, I am not complaining about all episode articles—there's probably as many good ones as bad ones (good ones like Hell-O (Glee), The Undergraduates, and obligatory Simpsons reference Treehouse of Horror XXI). But when the entire article is unsourced plot summary and cast listings, does there really need to be an article for it?

I've seen some cases where individual episodes redirect to a "Show X (season Y)" article. Is there consensus for consolidating these articles like this? Is anyone going to come after me with a pitchfork if I try to clean these things up? I wouldn't touch any article that's supported by more than one non-trivial coverage in a reliable source but is there any point at all in articles like Spiral (Haven)?

I'm willing to do some heavy lifting and tackle this issue, but not unless I have support form the project community. :) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPINOUT would support your decision to redirect stubs back to season or series articles. If there's no ongoing attempt to expand these articles with genuine content then fire away. GRAPPLE X 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You might template the articles, and put a note on the "List of XXX episodes" talk to give notice of your concerns. That would give any involved editors notice to improve the articles. If there isn't any response in a week or so, then you could proceed to redirect without drama. I'm myself making slow efforts to make some episode articles more notable after a burst of unheralded redirects, so you might stimulate improvements. Barsoomian (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully support redirecting stubby cruft like that to the show's main article or to the appropriate "list of..." article. But like Grapple said, putting a post on the talk page first will give fair warning. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. --Maitch (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I said what now? GRAPPLE X 21:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Episodes which do not individually meet the GNG should not be separate articles. However, note that the GNG is actually a pretty low bar for current episodes, since 2-3 independent RS'ed reviews are pretty common. In writing Game of Thrones (TV series) episodes, a current award-winning and critically acclaimed show, I have at least half a dozen to choose from for reception without needing to dip into any fansites. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes nominated at AfD

List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Legends of the Hidden Temple episodes (3rd nomination). Feedback from this WikiProject is appreciated. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability

I'm not clear whether there are special tv guidelines that would make KBCH-TV notable, so thought I would stop by here and ask.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're at the wrong Wikiproject, you post this at WT:WikiProject Television Stations. Powergate92Talk 23:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Historic Drama Episodes

There are a lot of people who like to create episode articles. Of the twelve most recent episodes to win Directors_Guild_of_America_Award#Outstanding_Directorial_Achievement_in_Dramatic_Series three need articles (two from Mad Men and one from 24): "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (Mad Men) ", "Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency", "Day 5: 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Historic Comedy Episodes

Of the 22 most recent episodes to win Directors_Guild_of_America_Award#Outstanding_Directorial_Achievement_in_Comedy_Series only 10 have been created (2005-2010, plus all 3 Seinfeld and 1 of 2 Frasier winning episodes).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the twelve episodes needing articles include two each from Curb Your Enthusiasm, Sex and the City, Sports Night and one each from Malcolm in the Middle, Will & Grace, Mad About You, Frasier, Murphy Brown, and Cheers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Episodic Awards

Which awards at the Screen Actors Guild Awards, Primetime Emmy Awards and Golden Globe Awards are for specific episodes? I think all the Emmy guest actor and writer awards are for specific episodes and the directing awards may be as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Just in case anyone wasn't aware, there's a consensus discussion going on here. Sarujo (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reformating Emmy Awards episodic Directing and Writing templates

Recently episode articles have become quite the rage. I am unaware of any templates to link critically acclaimed episodes. Although I am unaware of any awards for best episode, there are a few best episode directing and best episode screenplay awards. As such, I have created the following:

• {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 1995–2009}}
• {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 2010–2029}}
• {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicComedyScreenplay 1995–2009}}
• {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicComedyScreenplay 2010–2029}}
• {{DirectorsGuildofAmericaOutstandingDirectingDramaSeries 1971–1989}}
• {{DirectorsGuildofAmericaOutstandingDirectingDramaSeries 1990–2009}}
• {{DirectorsGuildofAmericaOutstandingDirectingDramaSeries 2010–2029}}
• {{DirectorsGuildofAmericaOutstandingDirectingComedySeries 1971–1989}}
• {{DirectorsGuildofAmericaOutstandingDirectingComedySeries 1990–2009}}
• {{DirectorsGuildofAmericaOutstandingDirectingComedySeries 2010–2029}}

I am giving thought to adding episodes to Emmy Awards templates that are awarded for episode contributions. I will not do so for awards that are only for single roles in an episode, but for awards representing entire episodes (directing and writing). The following are the categories that I would modify templates to highlight the closest substitutes that we have for most critically acclaimed episode:

• Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series, {{EmmyAward ComedyDirector}} (article names episodes starting in 1990)
• Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, {{EmmyAward DirectingDrama}} (article names episodes starting in 1980)
• Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series, {{EmmyAward DramaWriting}} (article names episodes starting in 1980)
• Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series, {{EmmyAward ComedyWriting}} (article names episodes starting in 1980)

I don't think this is necessary for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Miniseries, Movie or a Dramatic Special or Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Miniseries, Movie or a Dramatic Special. These are often TV movies and miniseries which actually have Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Miniseries ({{EmmyAward Miniseries}}) and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Made for Television Movie ({{EmmyAward TelevisionMovie}}). Even though this category is sometimes for an episode of a miniseries, changing these templates would result in some redundancy.

I don't think this is necessary for Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Program or Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Program since episode articles are not common for these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Something else to think about. Having best directed and best written templates on episodes, may encourage editors to work more on critically acclaimed series like The Sopranos and Frasier that show up at Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay - Episodic Comedy and Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay – Episodic Drama with unwritten articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I've noticed right now that a majority of the episodes that have been either promoted to GA or are working to be there are from a handful of comedy series. This would allow others to branch out.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Allow is not the right word, IMO. We are already allowed to create these articles, but this would encourage more diverse editorial efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I like it, it seems like a good idea. Like Gen. Quon said, it would allow the articles to branch out. NoD'ohnuts (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's one thing I love, it's a good template. Nice work with them. Ruby 2010/2013 16:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. As I've written a few episode articles, I would have no problem adding these to relevant episodes. Has anyone objected so far? Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So far with you there are three supports besides myself (plus Ruby2010 who sort of supports). I will probably change all the EMMY templates next week if there are no objections.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, this looks like a great idea. I'm thinking that it might also be a to add a small link to the templates listing the individuals who won these awards too, for example "David Chase" (E) (2007)". Might encourage the creation of viable articles for other winning episodes (they're clearly all noteworthy so they should definitely be encouraged). GRAPPLE X 20:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I had not thought about making them small links like that. I was going to make them look like the Writers Guild and Directors Guild templates and link them as the articles are made.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, I may have misunderstood you. I was assuming you were creating new templates to just list the episodes (sort of like {{GoldenGlobeBestMotionPictureMusicalComedy 2001–2020}}), in which case I would have recommended adding episode links to the people template to show the work that they won for. GRAPPLE X 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is what I thought you were suggesting to begin with. GRAPPLE X 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Something like that, but I don't intend to link to season articles or episode lists. I will leave them unlinked. As articles are created, they can be linked. However, it is up for debate whether to link to season articles and episode lists in the absence of an article. Reiterating, the current proposal is to make the Emmy templates like the DGA and WGA templates above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yeah, unlinked might be best. Also of note, apparently NYPD Blue doesn't have an episode list. GRAPPLE X 23:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm actually against that idea - the WGA/DGA ones look too busy. Splitting them into two, to list the episodes and the credits separately, would look cleaner. One set navigates between biography articles of the writers/directors themselves, and one set between the works that they won for. GRAPPLE X 23:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have created a lot of templates with author and work in the same template for other types of subjects. See {{PulitzerPrize Fiction 1976–2000}} and {{Billboard Year-End number one albums 1990–2009}}. Note that the episodes are mostly without articles right now so saying to split them is like saying you don't want templates for them because we don't have enough articles to do them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just thinking that with credits, episode, series and year, it'll get very cluttered. Perhaps breaking it into single decades and not the two-at-a-time approach that currently seems to be used would alleviate that? GRAPPLE X 00:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For some subjects, decades have been required. E.g., {{Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song 1980s}}. I'll see how they look and make adjustments as is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. my guess is that for EMMY writing (especially comedy) the time period will have to be shortened. For directing, the time period might be unchanged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

All of this looks good to me. I love navboxes. The only thing I'd like to see in addition (I think this may have been mentioned above already) is the name of the series represented somehow. Of course, that would require each entry to have four different things (the people involved, the episode title, the series, and the year), and it would probably get out of hand. If there's a way to add it without giving readers headaches, I'd like to see it. If not, what's already here looks great. Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes it would be helpful to add the series, but these are honors for the episode and actor. It would be like adding the film to {{Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song 1980s}} or the album to {{Billboard Year-End number one singles 1980–1999}}. The whole film or album was not a winner. Just a selected portion of it. In this case, the whole series or even a season of the series was not the prize-winning media. One quick look at Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series and you will be reminded that this is an honor for an episode. That is why the episode is propsed to be added. It sort of corrects an injustice. My hope is to see a lot of prizewinning The Sopranos, ER, Mad Men and Frasier episodes among those being created and presented at WP:GAC as a result of this template modification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a pretty solid consensus in favor of this change. I am going to begin doing it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Acclaimed Writing and Directing Award-winning episodes update

I have finished creating and amending the episodic awards templates for directing and writing. I am contemplating reformatting the Emmy writing templates to encompass smaller time periods, but I am not really convinced it is worth the effort. Looking at what is done and what needs to be done, we are doing better than I had anticipated. Almost all episodes that have won multiple awards in this century have articles. Except for one episode of Mad Men all episodes in the last 10 years with multiple awards have articles. Three dramas swept the two Emmy awards and won either the WGA or DGA, but all are from 1995 and before. Three others won one Emmy and the DGA. In terms of comedy only one episode with three awards is missing an article. It is a 2001 episode of Malcolm in the Middle, which is one of two shows (Frasier being the other with two missing multi-winning episodes). See below for the significant ommissions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Drama 3 Awards

"Cop" Lou Grant (1979/1980) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Hill Street Station" Hill Street Blues (1981) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Love's Labor Lost" ER (1995) WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

Drama 2 Awards

"All God's Children" I'll Fly Away (1991/1992) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Hearts and Souls" NYPD Blue (1998/1999) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Day 5: 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m." 24 (2006) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" Mad Men (2007/2008) Emmy-Writing, DGA-Directing

Comedy 3 Awards

"Bowling" Malcolm in the Middle (2001) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

Comedy 2 Awards

"Pilot" The Cosby Show (1984/1985) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"A, My Name Is Alex" (1987) Family Ties DGA-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Good-bye" The Wonder Years (1990) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Woody Interruptus" Cheers (1990/1991) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"The Matchmaker" Frasier (1995) WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing

"Flip" The Larry Sanders Show (1998) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Pilot" Sports Night (1998/1999) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Merry Christmas, Mrs. Moskowitz" Frasier (1999) WGA-Writing, Emmy-Writing

"Pilot" Malcolm in the Middle (2000) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

Proper page name for The Firm

Please comment at Talk:The_Firm_(Canadian_TV_series)#Requested_move.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been swayed by User:Deliriousandlost's arguments over on Talk:The Firm (2012 TV series) / Talk:The Firm (Canadian TV series) that there are fundamental problems with the disambiguation naming convention at WP:TV-NAME. Therefore, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), I have proposed a change to the naming convention. Other people's input would be appreciated on that naming convention talk page. —Lowellian (reply) 22:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Episodic television series

Hello, everyone! This column I found describes in detail the structure of several television series and analyses the differences between them and how they help or detract from episode and season plots. There are lots of articles in this project that could get improved with articles like this. Could you add the content to them? Thanks! -- NaBUru38 (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The Client List (TV Series) Controversy

Hey guys, I came across a controversy section in The Client List, and I'm wondering if this should be included. I'd ask the question on the article's talk page, but it doesn't seem to be a very active article. First, is Change.org consider a reliable source? It seems like a few other sources have reported on it, but the there isn't a ton of detail. Second, is this notable enough to be included? It says they have 1,300 signatures, but I'm not sure that this is notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. This is unfamiliar territory for me, so I thought I'd post the question here. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Programming Blocks

Anyone from this project want to figure out what this project is supposed to be all about: Wikipedia:WikiProject Programming Blocks? Is it just supposed to cover things like Must See TV, Animation Domination, and TGIF (ABC)? Does that need its own project? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be its focus, which is pretty bloody narrow. Might work best as a task force of WP:TV, if it's still active. 21:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New article on film director Oliver Blackburn

• Oliver Blackburn

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Arts for featured portal consideration

• Portal:Arts

I've nominated Portal:Arts for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Arts. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

New article on music composer François-Eudes Chanfrault

• François-Eudes Chanfrault

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposing Edits to Bloomberg Television

Hi-there. I'd like to propose some changes to the Bloomberg Television article. Currently, it lacks sourcing and generally is disorganized. I've written a draft of the article in my sandbox to give give a little more structure to the article while providing better citations. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at it and, if found appropriate, please implement the changes into the current article. I work on behalf of Bloomberg L.P. and do not want my conflict of interest to interfere with Wikipedia's guidelines by implementing any major changes into the article myself. --RivBitz (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New article on British actress Sian Breckin

• Sian Breckin

I've created this new article. If you've got additional input for secondary sources, please feel free to suggest them at the article's talk page, I'd really appreciate it. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Awake (TV series)

I was going to tag the talk page of Awake (TV series), but I am not sure what tags belong. Is it Sci-Fi or Psychology?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Drama and Fantasy in the infobox, and that seems appropriate. There is no indication of a scientific explanation of the premise, so it's not SF. Though he might be insane, if that's what you mean by "Psychology". Barsoomian (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Friends episodes

Hello all -- just to let you know I have nominated this for WP:FLC and it can do with comments, feedback, criticism et al in the next few days or weeks. If you can please take some time to give some feedback, cheers – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Toonzone

Hi all, I have started a discussion on toonzone on reliable source notice board, i would like to get as many editors involved as possible soa consensus on the site various parts can be have resolution and eventually archived consensus decisions that all user will be able to look over in the future. Here is the link to the thread Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Toonzone please i really encourage all editors to participator as this is used as source for main article son wikipedia and there is always arguments over it, i have tried to collect the different areas of the site as there is many and post my opinions on each part so lease join in--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Award-winning shows without season articles

Can someone tell me why the following award-winning shows have no season articles. I am wondering if they have been deleted/merged into episode list articles:

1. Mad Men
2. The Sopranos
3. Six Feet Under (TV series)
4. The Shield
5. Everybody Loves Raymond
6. Sex and the City--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to this, but I can add that Miami Vice has no season articles, and NYPD Blue has no episode list. I suspect apathy to be honest. GRAPPLE X 00:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The following are the seasons that have won major awards ({{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama}}, {{GoldenGlobeTVDrama}}, and {{EmmyAward DramaSeries}} or {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVComedy}}, {{GoldenGlobeTVComedy}}, and {{EmmyAward ComedySeries}}) since 1990 that need award-winning season articles (the season numbers needed follow the name of the series):

Drama;

1. Mad Men 1, 2, 3, 4
2. The Sopranos 1, 5, 6
3. Six Feet Under (TV series) 1-3
4. The Shield 1
5. The Practice 2-3
6. Party of Five 1-2
7. Northern Exposure 2-4
8. Twin Peaks 1-2
9. Picket Fences 1-2
10. L.A. Law 1-5 (includes seasons going back to 1986)

Comedy

1. Everybody Loves Raymond 6, 7, 9
2. Sex and the City 2-4, 6
3. Extras 2
4. The Office (UK TV series) ?
5. Curb Your Enthusiasm 3
6. Cybill 1-2
7. Mad About You 2-3
8. Roseanne (TV series) 4-5
9. Brooklyn Bridge (TV series) 1
10. Cheers 1-2, 7-9 (includes seasons going back to 1983)
11. Murphy Brown 2, 4

Note the list above iincludes two shows that were once the number-one show in the country according to Nielsen Media Research (Cheers and Roseanne (TV series)).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? It's not a matter of how many awards a show has, its how much text there is in the article. The Office (UK TV series) is only 14 episodes, in total, and Extras 13, for example. You really think they should be split? Barsoomian (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not really a WP:TV or WP:TV-EPISODE guy. I will leave to the experts to determine, which of the above have sufficient encyclopedic content in WP:RS to have independent articles. The Mad Men seasons that have been created seem to have substantial content. I am guessing that 80-90% of the 51 seasons listed above could have good articles. The awards indicator may have a 10-20% error rate. Use common sense.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It does look more scientific if you make up some percentages, I guess. But some genres, such as sitcoms, no matter how popular, just don't get much analysis. Where shows like Mad Men, with truckloads of subtext, or geeky puzzle shows like Lost, draw huge amounts. So I don't think you can correlate awards with article material so simply. You really think it's worth the effort to do a whole article about a season of Cheers? Barsoomian (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you are teaching me something. I thought comedies were easier to write because I think Simpsons, South Park and 30 Rock have more work on them than any other television series on WP (at least that is what I gather from WP:GT). In terms of "worth the effort", it is a matter of can you find WP:RS. Pre-internet era shows may be very difficult to research. I tried to create "Pilot (The Cosby Show)" and did not find much. I thought it was because I don't know how to research TV. Look, here is the list, if you are tired of working on Simpsons, South Park and 30 Rock have at it. Surely if you want to help WP some of these series would be useful. Each series will be governed by WP:GNG. I am not going to say do this one and don't do that one. I am just putting the list out there and if you can find any that you can source make the page. Even if half of the seasons are undoable doing the other half will be helpful. You might look at a series like Cheers and see an impossible task and another editor might be able to make a featured article out of each season because he/she has access to the right books. I don't know what is out there. It would not surprise me if some books on Television history have encyclopedic content about Cheers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I said "sitcom", not "comedy". I know that some comedies, like the Simpsons, have a lot going on. But many very popular shows are just strings of setup/ joke, setup joke.... Entertaining, but not demanding or getting much analysis. So, as I said, I don't see a direct correlation between "popular and award winning" and "requires x thousand words of article for each season". But you can spend your time as you want, of course. Barsoomian (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We could go back and forth for some time with you telling me why a large swath of these are unlikely to meet notability requirements for separate articles and me saying I don't know what the possibilities are. The list is there. These are arguably the most important television series seasons in history (in terms of critical acclaim). I just ask that as you consider how you will contribute your time, you consider whether you can help create any of these. You may be right about sitcoms, but 30 Rock and the American incarnation of The Office (U.S. TV series) seem to get a lot of attention. It might be the case that season articles might be worth creating just to catolog the accolades for the season. Looking at the first set of articles created for Mad Men, I can only hope that these other seasons are simlarly fruitful in terms of accolades.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Arguably the most important television series seasons in history". That is indeed "arguable". Popular isn't necessarily important. Lots of popular things are deservedly forgotten a few years later. Is every Top-40 pop song, every best selling paperback, demanding of as serious and deep analysis as Beethoven or Kafka? You give some examples of shows that are worth analysis. I'm not arguing about those. Each show should be considered on its merits, and those merits are not circumscribed by how many Emmies they got in a particular year. Awards are often based on it being someone's "turn", or lack of competition in that year and category, not an absolute mark of excellence. The award winning seasons are often of shows past their prime. Personally I spend my time on things that are interesting to me, or just things I come across when looking up a subject. Usually subjects that have been neglected more than massively popular. I feel no obligation to concentrate on award winning shows. I think the shows you list are all covered adequately. If anyone wants to work to make them more comprehensive, that's fine and commendable, but not a high priority. Barsoomian (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note that only 2 of the 21 television series suggested for your consideration above were ever the most popular television show ({{TopUSTVShows}}). Furthermore, I am not suggesting that you just add the awards I am using to identify missing seasons/episodes. Look closely at the Mad Men seasons created in answer to this call. They not only discuss Emmy, Golden Globe, SAG, Writer's Guild and Directors Guild that I used for screening, but also they mention AFI, TCA, Artios, Peabody and such. The seasons that I mentioned above are quite likely to have many nominations and awards from all of these and other industry groups. It looks to me like Comedy may suffer from the "Someone's turn" problem more than drama. 8 of the 10 drama series mentioned above are notable for the first season, while 8 of the 11 comedies are notable for only for later seasons that may represent a "turn" philosophy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Barsoomian (talk · contribs), I just checked a couple things about Cheers that suggest to me there would be substantial encyclopedic content for each season:

  http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/23836

  http://www.emmys.com/award_history_search?person=&program=Cheers&start_year=1949&end_year=2011&network=All&web_category=All&winner=All --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is material, go ahead. I'm not interested myself, maybe someone else is. Barsoomian (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Acting Emmys in episode articles

I have noticed a preponderance of descriptions in episode articles that say actor x won the Lead Actor in a Comedy Series, Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series, Lead Actress in a Comedy Series, Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Supporting Actress in a Drama Series or Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series for this episode. Is this correct or do you win those awards for seasons based on submissions of a particular episode. For many Emmys such as writing and directing as well as often for guest acting or voiceover, winning for an episode is quite precise. I am not sure it is precise for the acting awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actors submit specific episodes (rather than a whole season) for consideration at each Emmy ceremony that features what they believe to be their best work (Anna Torv for instance submitted four episodes for consideration last year; we would have been told which episode had she received a nomination (see here).) So yes, I believe it is as precise as the Directing and Writing categories. Hope that helps! Ruby 2010/2013 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruby, Is there a reliable source regarding the episode specifics that you mention?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there instances where we have been told, which one of multiple submissions was nominated? I don't see any indication at http://www.emmys.com. Is episode recognition official like it is for writing and directing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at some actors I knew had won or been nominated, and neither David Duchovny (lead actor nom 97 and 98) or Edward James Olmos (lead actor win in 85 and nom in 86) lisy any specific episodes. What I would conjecture is that the actor's individual submissions are viewed by the awarding body as an audition of sorts—if your self-assessed "best work" doesn't impress them, they won't look into your wider performance on the season as a whole. Just a theory. GRAPPLE X 21:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actors or studios submit samples of episode(s), but it is not the episode itself that is being recognize. It could be a combination of episodes that are being assessed to determine an actor's accepted nomination and eventual win. So, it probably is not accurate to put it in an episode article, because it is not the episode itself that is being recognized in someway. With director or writer you really are looking at that one episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If an article clearly states that an actor submitted an episode in pursuit of a nomination, regardless of whether the were nominated or won, that belongs in an article. However, articles that say something to the effecto of Actor X won this Acting Award for this episode are not presenting meaningful encyclopedic content, because, the acting awards are not awarded for episodes. There are an infinite number of articles that could misstate this concept, but I have checked all the articles linked to the Directing/Writing Drama/Comedy Emmy templates and found the following articles present this topic wrongly, IMO: "Long Term Parking", "Whitecaps (The Sopranos)", "In Excelsis Deo", "College (The Sopranos)", "The Getaway (Dexter)" (table only), "The Good Son (Frasier)" and "Pilot (Desperate Housewives)".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Latin American TV Channels

Hello, I have noted that in several cases, for series that are broadcasted through a latin american wide network, such as Fox Latin America, Sony Entertainment and so, many individual countries are listed (e.g. Mexico - Fox, Venezuela - Fox, etc.). I think we could standardize on a single way for Latin American networks as a whole. What is your opinion on the subject?

Sebastian 21:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian2992 (talk • contribs)

Big Bang Theory

There is a discussion about the primary topic of Big Bang Theory. Currently it is an american TV show. You are welcome to comment at Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Red or Black?

I've heard on the grapevine that the British TV show Red or Black? has been renewed but with a changed format. Currently the show article is a GA. Has anyone got any experience with splitting up a show article into series articles as this will need to happen shortly and I've never had the opportunity to do it - also what happens to the GA? I presume it just gets dropped and once stable the new series one article can get renominated. Miyagawa (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't need splitting into Red or Black? (series 1) and Red or Black? (series 2) because (1) the article is pretty short as it is; and (2) both series have so few episodes. Just update the two Format and Production sections of the article with a couple of new paragraphs that discuss the format changes. If written well (to GA standards), the GA shouldn't be affected, but if you're concerned you can always take it through Good Article Review. GAs and FAs aren't taken away just because articles get updated with new information. Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated high priority episodes

Thanks to everybody who responded to my messages over the last month regarding badly needed episodes. Following the creation of "Love's Labor Lost (ER)", "Day 5: 7:00 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.", "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes (Mad Men)", "Bowling (Malcolm in the Middle)", "Pilot (The Cosby Show)", ""A," My Name is Alex - Parts I & II ", "Good-bye (The Wonder Years)" and "Pilot (Malcolm in the Middle)" our list had gotten shorter. Today, I stumbled upon a new resource (the Writers Guild of America Library Catalog) and we have a much more complete list of episode awards on WP. As a result, the new list of episodes that have won multiple awards that appear to have no article has expanded by 7. See below, which does not include the recently created "Merry Christmas, Mrs. Moskowitz", "Woody Interruptus", "Pilot (Sports Night)" and "Hill Street Station".

For a complete list of progress on episodes and seasons needed see Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Episodes.

Drama 3 Awards

"Cop" Lou Grant (1979/1980) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

Drama 2 Awards

"All God's Children" I'll Fly Away (1991/1992) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Hearts and Souls" NYPD Blue (1998/1999) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Therapy" thirtysomething (1988) WGA-Writing, DGA-Directing

"Pilot" thirtysomething (1988/1989) WGA-Writing, DGA-Directing

"Trial By Fury" Hill Street Blues (1983) WGA-Writing, Emmy-Writing

"Life in the Minors" Hill Street Blues (1983) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Prisoner" Lou Grant (1978) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing

"The Madman" The Defenders (1963) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"The People Next Door" CBS Playhouse (1969) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Who Do You Kill?" East Side/West Side (1964) WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing

Comedy 3 Awards

The Matchmaker Frasier DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing

"Dear Sigmund" M*A*S*H (1976) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing

Comedy 2 Awards

"Flip" The Larry Sanders Show (1998) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Brown Like Me" Murphy Brown (1989/1990) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing

"Uh-Oh - Part II" Murphy Brown (1991/1992) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing

"Showdown - Part 2" Cheers (1983) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Isn't It Romantic?" The Golden Girls (1986/1987) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

Please help us create some of these and fill in the templates, award articles, writer articles, director articles, season articles and episode lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Award winning TV Shows with no aritcles

Another finding of my recent research is many award winning shows that have no articles. The following shows that have episodes that have won Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series, Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay - Episodic Comedy, Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay – Episodic Drama, and/or Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Drama Series have no articles:

CBS Playhouse

American Dream (TV series)

The Marcus-Nelson Murders

The Glass House (1972 TV series)

The Price (television)

Shadow Game (television)

The People Next Door (1969 TV series)

Equal Justice

Jack Benny Hour Specials

Steambath (TV series)

Trials of O'Brien

Judd For the Defense

Sandburg's Lincoln

The Law (TV series)

Stop by and help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are these wooody woodpecker sources valid?

I am trying to improve the woody woodpecker articles particularly his television show articles. I just wish to know if The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia! (see here http://lantz.goldenagecartoons.com/) is a valid source as the website states that its an unofficial website so surely all these sources on woody woodpecker articles should be removed. I thought I better ask before any militant inclusionists accuse me of "destroying valuable information".Dwanyewest (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look at the site, and it doesn't really seem to fit WP:RS; you could ask WP:RSN for a better-informed opinion though. There does seem to be some info on Lantz on the official site, I'm not sure which articles the fansite is being used in so I don't know if that helps or not. GRAPPLE X 05:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the correct way to order episodes?

I have a question on whether there is a specific guideline on pages that list episodes on TV shows, such as List of The Nanny episodes. I have noticed there has been a lot of reverts on this page because there is a difference between the air dates of the show and the order in which the episodes were created. Some people think it should be arranged by the air date and others think it should be arranged by the date the episodes were created since this is how they were supposed to air. Is there a correct way on how this should be listed? LongLiveMusic (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Convention seems to be to go by airdate. I'm heavily involved with WP:TXF and several The X-Files and Millennium episodes aired in a different order to their production order, these episodes have been ordered in the relevant articles in terms of their airdate. You'll tend to find that DVD releases will retain broadcast order as well, so if the series has had a home release that gives you a concrete list of which episode follows which. GRAPPLE X 05:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course in general I agree, especially if the airdate has no effect on the continuum of the series or if the confusion is so high (too many changes) that the series itself has been perceveid by the audience as "confused". I will also never ask to put the first epsiode broadcasted by "the simpsons" in the middle of a table just because it wasn't the right production order. The problem here is not the general rule, it is a honest and reliable rule, the problem is that rules on wiki should have exceptions based on simple good sense. You use rules when you create a page starting from zero or when you see that the style of pages of the same topics is so different that generate confusion in the reader, but if you find something that does not follow it maybe you should always pose yourself the question if for some reason the exception is better. In a world where programmes are broadcasted everywhere and resold in DVD many times in the right production order, a single change in the broadcasting (even by a simple mistake) should not be used as a "sacred" standard for the display of a list. If it is a single isolated exception, it is worth a note, of course you put the date of broadcast but maybe you don't need to change an order just for that reason. In other words, if the broadcast order would be such a "universal" paramater to be imposed without exceptions even if the first author of a page and the other wikis did not follow it, than why you just don't put it in the first column of every table in the Tv project? Sometimes you don't, and the production code (or order) can be in the first column. To come to the exception, this discussion started here List of The Nanny episodes. Some months ago someone switched the season finale episodes from the last position in the middle of a table. if this can be acceptable for a single episode it just confusing for those finales, which keep the number "145" and "146" in the first column on the right (and noone will think to change it, like epsiode n 1 of the simpsons right?). So "unnatural" that, as I said in the discussion page, all the other wikis that have a complete table just don't follow it. So unnatural, that one of those stopped to compile the table right at that point. So we have a standard that -if imposed- make en.wiki diverge from the other and also generates confusion (and if my guess are right it won't be used, when the other language will be created). You can keep it but it is highly probable someone will put it back. than you will have some sort of edit war, maybe diluted in time, and than when you will have 7 or 8 wiki that put the finale at the end of a table, someone will change it definitely also here as it was wome months ago. So at the end, the implementation a simple rule that took some second of a muose click to be done (copy paste), has ended up consuming more time of wiki editors than necessary. the key point here is that i don't see my point as a personal opinion, but more like as an unavoidable consequence... (in fact, I am not even asking to change it due to the very marginal nature of the problem, i am just pointing out): in the same moment the guy who changed the order in en.wiki has diverged from the logic applied in the other wiki, he/she should have known that someone would have come and ask the reason. Maybe after three months, or 6 or 2 years, but this would have happened in any case. In this case the other wikis were already giving a strong support not do the change, and it should have been kept in mind. As a general behaviour, not just as the n-th sub-sub rule. Did i make my point? --Alexmar983 (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally, if you can find a reliable source for the production codes those codes will indicate the order that they were filmed (it is not unconventional for an episode to air in a different order than it was filmed). We should list them in the order that they were aired though. If you have the prod. codes, then list them as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

but we are not talking about the rule, but about the fact that the rule can have an exception purely based on good sense. Go here: List of The Simpsons episodes. When the first epsidose was broadcasted it became the first one of the series although it was n 8. And that it is and will always be. Look, what do you put on the left column " number 1" right? go here [[11]] epsiode 8 was in reality the first one in production of the second series, but they changed it and now it is n 8 not n 7 and it will always be. Now go back here [[12]] season 6. in order to obey the "rule" "you" put the finale in the middle on the table, now I am asking, why "you" didn't change also the numbers 145 and 146? According to the rule "broadcast makes the order" they should be now (and forever) number 139 and 140, because that's what "you" did everywhere, right? But apparently you do not find it so "natural" here. So my point is: you follow the broadcast rule diverging from all the other wiki but than at the you make an exception on that? but if you can have an exception on that (i.e; you put a non-consecutive order in the numbering of the left column different from the broadcast), than why just you can't have an exception tout court and just keep the series finale where 99% of the world population expect it to be, right at the end of the table? Just try to keep the message: rules sometimes are just made to be broken. Just that. --Alexmar983 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because other articles are doing it does not mean that it is correct, or that every article should do it. I don't know the circumstances as to why those pages are doing something different. The only time I can think of where there was a serious issue was with Firefly, because FOX literally corrupted the entire order of that show and then did not even show every episode. Other than that, it is not uncommon to change the order of an episode. Smallville had this happen several times and often the episodes that were aired out of production order either had no effect on the overall story, or they were changed subtly to make sense. So, if we had moved them around in "production" order then plot wise it might have made things more confusing. It's generally best to follow the broadcast date, and to make a note that certain episodes were aired out of order. P.S. Please do not attribute what some editors do on some pages to me actually editing every page. I don't touch those pages and some of them I've never even looked at.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we are going around the subject again 1) I wrote "you" as a generic form, look it is between "", it is like saying you generic editor because I am writing to everyone, not just you, I can be more consistent but why do you think I will just be upset with someone in particular? 2) Just because other articles... just because all the article put the broadcasting order does not mean "you" have to do it always, and that is what I am saying, "you" geenric wikipedian don't have to, especially if in order to follow the rule you actually end up making something different in any case, as the page is now. When "you" put them in the middle of the table but "you" do not change the number at the left you are actually doing something different, but if "you" end up doing something different in any case, than why don't "you" just make a difference putting the finale right the end? "You" will be inconsistent in both case, but in one case you are in agreement with the other wiki in other one you don't, although you will be inconsistent with en.wiki in both cases. Or, if you prefer a precise question just answer that: If "Finale: part I" is the 138th epsiode in the broacasting order, why do "you" write "145" at the left ? Why you/"you" don't change it? I have told you the reason of my exception to the rule: it is a finale, therefore it is confusing and people will change it back any case, you are just starting an endless series of edit that will never stop. Now please can someone tell me why "you" write "145" for something which is not the 145th broadcasted episode? Why this choice should have more sense than "mine", "mine" is incostent on en.wiki, "yours" at the moment is inconsistent with other wikis and also with other articles on en.wiki, as I said before. So why writing "145" to the "138th" broadcasted epsiode is better? It seems to me that this one is just a byproduct of a too rigid application of a rule, whilst the one on the other wiki is just a more "universal" way to solve the problem. And when this happens, don't be slave of the rule. Rules always work in 90%, 99% or 99.9% of the cases, but exceptions will always exist. In this case where "you" can actually realize it looking around, just look around.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Family Guy episode discussion

Hey, just thought I'd pass along that there's a discussion going on over here. Sarujo (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing to Zap2It future listings for episode titles?

I am currently experiencing a conflict with two editors on Scandal (TV series), a series that hasn't even come to the air yet (and won't until April 5), and whose majority of episode titles haven't hit ABC's press wire yet. However, they have created an "episode guide" using titles sourced to the TV listings of Zap2It which aren't scheduled at all, and nothing else (such as this one not even premiering for two months yet). Currently there is only episode title (the pilot) I can source directly to ABC's press department, but the other six episodes have not had synopses hit yet. An attempt by me to remove the episode guide with an imploring that we're not under deadline was reverted with an argument that they are used on a "huge number of articles", though this seems more likely for existing programs than future episodes two months in the future. I would like some guidance on how to proceed without hitting 3RR; note that this article has had a problem with an episode guide article created in January with only the premiere date released and nothing else. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is empty. You can't have a discussion with edit comments. Explain your position there and refer to it in your edits and you might be able to work it out. Anyway, Zap2It says it sources its info from "Tribune Media Services, which is America's leading source of entertainment listings data", ([13]) so it's not just random anonymous contributors like many dubious listings sites. Barsoomian (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The Voice UK

After a lot of blood, sweat and tears, AND A LOT OF HARD WORK!!! I have completed the new and revamped The Voice UK. However, I would like to know one question. There is no really point in creating the Voice UK (series 1) yet, as the current main article is only there for the first series anyway, any thoughts? MayhemMario 20:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If, and only if, there is a second series should a series article for the first one be made—if it ends up like, for example, Popstars: The Rivals to pick something similar, then the parent article and a series 1 article are one and the same. GRAPPLE X 21:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not good practice to assess an article which you've written the majority of. You're always going to be biased, as evidenced by the A-Class rating you gave it from WP:TV. We don't even have an A-class assessment. And I'm sorry, but a show that hasn't even gone to air yet is not of High importance. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A-Class status needs to be assigned after the agreement of two or more uninvolved editors, if I'm not mistaken. Though I would be open to helping out if we wanted to introduce A-Class assessment here (though I see it being closer to WP:VG's version than WP:MILHIST's). GRAPPLE X 16:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably differs between each Project as to how A-Class status is given? I'm not familiar with either of those two projects requirements or practices. It's not a part of WP:TV's Assessment though, so no article should be tagged as such. I'm also open to looking into whether it's worth doing, though. Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST use a very formal, almost FAC-like approach (see this for an example); whereas WP:VG has a subpage allowing for editors to request assessment for any article, including requesting A-Class assessment, which takes a few editors looking at it and giving it the thumbs up, but is still more informal than MILHIST. GRAPPLE X 19:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

TV Guide's list of the greatest 100 episodes of all time

Does anyone have a good WP:RS for either the 1997 or 2009 TV Guide's 100 Greatest Episodes of All-Time?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If it was published in the print magazine then citing that as a source is reliable in and of itself; tracking a copy down in order to know the actual contents is then the issue. I'd imagine it's the kind of thing that a library might have a copy of, or perhaps a newspaper archive. GRAPPLE X 15:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2009 list is available online in various places. I have referred to it at "Love's Labor Lost (ER)". I would prefer better sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Should we have a template like {{AFI 10 Top 10}} for the TV Guide top 100 episodes? Would it be a copyvio?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, their countdown had a little blurb for every episode, so simply listing off the countdown isn't copying their work directly. GRAPPLE X 16:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, regardless of the blurbs or not, the full republishing of the list in one place will be called out as a copyright violation. Because there's some subjective decision here as to the placement and selection, there is a copyrighted element and ergo we cannot use the full work. Highlights can be used, and individual episodes that are on it can certainly reference that, but we can't talk about the list as a whole. It would be different if it were, say, the most-watched TV episodes based on Neilsen data, which is completely factual and thus not copyrightable.

The AFI lists are special as we have on the OTRS confirmation that they have allowed these into the public domain so we can include them in full. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear the question was asked to a WMF attorney who affirmed that wholy republishing such lists are improper. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We have attorneys? GRAPPLE X 18:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

More episode articles for creation

I have expanded the list at Wikipedia:Television_episodes#Episodes with a second list of articles. They are from the 2009 TV Guide's 100 Greatest Episodes of All-Time. Currently we have 38 done and 13 redirects to list articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

South Park episodes lead to season page when Episode page exist

I've been looking up a few pages for South Park episodes. For example South Park is Gay and South Park is Gay!. Click it. It leads to the Season 7 page. But, as you can see from the season page, the page for that episode actually exists, South Park Is Gay!. Quite a few episodes do this.

Shouldn't these redirects point to the actual episode if the page already exists? I'm willing to do that, but I was wondering whether it actually needed to be done.

I am r000t (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The redirect should go to the appropriate page. That said, it appears from the history that the episode in question has been going back and forth as a redirect itself for a few weeks. There is a question of the page's notability because there is nothing but a plot summary listed. It seems that the redirect to the season page was done when the episde page was redirected there. Then an edit war broke out over the notability of the episode page, and no one has bothered edit warring over the redirect itself. lol. If that makes sense?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually it makes total sense. The question now is whether to risk fixing the redirects. The risk is in the fact that, if one of the episode page is deleted, what would have been a (albeit useless) working link to an existing page, is now a redlink. I am r000t (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Same episode?

Is the episode that won the Writers Guild of America Award for Best Screenplay – Episodic Drama titled "thirtysomething" by the Writers Guild of America the same episode as that which won Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Drama Series titled "Pilot" by the Directors Guild of America? I see no episode entitled "thirtysomething" at List of Thirtysomething episodes. If they are the same, which name is correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be my assumption. When I was researching List of accolades received by Miami Vice I found a few instances of "Brother's Keeper" (the pilot) being referred to as "Miami Vice". I was able to discern that one for certain because the writer listed for it had only written "Brother's Keeper" and nothing else. That might be a way to double-check here, if the DGA and WGA award nominations list the same people. I think pilots are sometimes called by their series name in industry things like this, probably because internally a pilot is the series for such a long time, but we only perceive them as episodes because we get to see the rest of the series follow after it. Probably rambling a bit here but yes, a thirtysomething episode called "thirtysomething" is more than likely meant to refer to the pilot. GRAPPLE X 17:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Good job on the research Grapple X. Don't forget that in the day and age before VHS and especially DVD TV series often didn't give names to the individual episodes. Production numbers yes but names could be hit and miss. When home media sales came along then there was a need to name the episodes so it was done retroactively. Also, you might also get the production staff giving one name to the episode and the marketing department useing another (see the early years of Dr Who for example) - when I taped Barney Miller from of Nick at Night many years ago I made up episode names and, when they finally released the entire series last year, I was surprised that 6 or 7 episodes had been given the same name that I had used. Now, I suspect that you already knew this but I thought I add to the conversation just in case. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Guest stars on ER

Hello all; I rewatched the ER episode Love's Labor Lost last night for the first time in years as I intend to expand it's article in the coming months. Unlike most programmes, it credits 'co-starring' and 'featuring' actors/actresses, so does anyone know how to differentiate them in the 'Guests' section in the infobox? Cheers -- Lemonade51 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You could insert a line to act as a header for each type in the infobox list, but I would really just list the actors all at once, keeping "co-stars" above "featured" actors. GRAPPLE X 11:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, will do so. – Lemonade51 (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Pilot (Sports Night)

I've created and expanded Pilot (Sports Night), and it could easily become a good article if someone wants add some more info, but does anyone know where to get the Nielsen ratings for the episode. I can only find a season preview and overall season ranking. 03md 02:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created two pilot episodes "Pilot" (The Cosby Show) and "Hill Street Station" that have good GA prospects. I think any award-winning Pilot episode could easily achieve GA. I suggest using Google news and searching on the show name for all articles during or before the month that the show debuted. I also did a similar search on ProQuest via the Chicago Public Library.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I would research Sports Night for you using these tools, but I never watched even part of an episode of the show and feel articles should be written by people who watched the shows.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to expand the Sports Night Pilot, I'd start with Google News search.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• I never watched it when it was on, but have watched almost the whole first season on Netflix so feel qualifed to write the article. 03md 00:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I did not know it was on Netflix streaming. Well take a shot at it if you are qualified. Those links I posted above should help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Emmy Episode submissions

I have notice that since 2007 (59th Primetime Emmy Awards) episode submissions are included for acting awards. Is there a way to note that the award is not episode specific in the acting categories (except guest and voice) as it is in some categories such as directing and writing? Maybe we could reduce the fontsize or use an asterisk when it is not awarded for the episode.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Avengers

Hi. I've started the pilot episode Hot Snow (The Avengers). If anybody is interested in helping me start episodes on the Avengers let me know!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Heroes

Wikipedia:WikiProject Heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This WikiProject is under discussion, and the proposal is converting this Project to a task force. The show is cancelled, and I don't watch Heroes anymore. I wonder if anybody here is interested. --George Ho (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Episode summaries in List/Season articles

Recently I added some season finale summaries for several different series articles. Most were two-four weeks out and very simple. A couple of my additions were removed by other editors because they were "unsourced". When, if ever, have we ref-linked "summaries" past, present or future? Airdates and episode titles, sure, but summaries? I understand about possible copyvios, but if put into Wiki-speak/own words, do they need sourcing? Thanks for any/all responses. — WylieCoyote (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

First question that pops to mind: Was there anything in the synopsis that read ans OR or synth? Second: How long were they?

If they were brief and didn't read as ad copy, they should have been fine I would think.

And as an aside... I'm assumming by "episode titles" you are talking about cases where a title screen isn't part of the episode.

- J Greb (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

They were "ShortSummaries" put into the episodes on the Seasonal articles/List of Episodes. And only a sentence or two, short ones, maybe 20 words, tops.

I thought so too.

By "episode titles" I meant those on Season/List pages that are future episode titles and sourced, along with the airdates.

I am also not talking about the episode articles that have 500 words of a plot summary. I mean the summaries that are usually a part of a wikitable. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Summaries like those in The X-Files (season 1) or The Simpsons (season 1)? Those don't really need to be cited. If there's a handy source that you could cite it all to (for example, a book describing that season), then there's no harm in that; but it's not necessary. GRAPPLE X 21:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

GRAPPLE, YES! Those kinds of summaries! Mine were for upcoming episodes of different shows. I understand that past ones don't need them since we know what happened, but was curious if future ones do. I try to be as concise as possible too, but I have seen some there were crazily long. And most future summaries from actual websites can be found within the ref-links for the episode names/dates too. So that's why I was scratching my head about it. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The summaries in question are summaries of unaired episodes for which he was reverted, and at least one that I reverted was also a copyvio taken from a CBS press release posted on Futon Critic and a couple other sites. This one was also added before summaries for at least two or three other episodes, and it was reasonable to expect that they a) be sourced and b) not be a copyright violation under the circumstances. --Drmargi (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Drmargi, I understand about copyvio. This topic is about having to source future summaries. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that's what I address. It doesn't alter the fact that there was also a copyright violation, an issue which makes sourcing even more critical. --Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming episodes need to be sourced, because we obviously cannot view and episode that has not aired. Once it has aired, then the episode itself becomes the source and we don't need a citation specifically for it. But, future episodes always need sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, then as I stated to Drmargi on another talkpage, some copy-editors have a lot of work to do! I'll try to keep an eye out myself, but just don't have the time to fix all that I come across. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

And that may very well be, and I don't believe anyone has asked you to check or fix every summary you come across. But there's a dandy essay somewhere about the fact someone having already done it isn't a reason to do it again, which was the point I was endeavoring to make. --Drmargi (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Which is why I commented in retrospect below. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That raises an issue though. As long as nothing OR-ish is included, the source of "the episode" is enough if redundant.

That said, I think I found the points in contention: [14] and [15].

And to be blunt: The crystal ball/TV Guide regurgitation does not belong. Those episodes are not due to air until mid-May, I got the impression you were talking about episode already aired. Anything related to an unaired episode needs sourcing. Period. A synopsis should never be written as an enticement to watch the show, which is what you added. That is leaving an unanswered question. A synopsis of an unaired ep is still likely to be removed as a breach of NFCC. AussieLegend and Drmargi made a good call and the material can wait for the 16th of May.

- J Greb (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all that have responded! — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

J Greb, actually, in retrospect, that ("A synopsis should never be written as an enticement to watch the show") DOES makes sense. Thanks. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I normally try to keep things in the present or past tense in any of my articles, unless something "production-related" is mentioned like "Season X has been approved." And yes, those additions are sourced. — WylieCoyote (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I was just caught up in the new movies, tv episodes, etc. coming up which is what started the finale summaries today. Lesson learned. - WylieCoyote (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional supercouples

Opinions on whether to delete or not? 31.193.133.160 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Loiter Squad

The article Loiter Squad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

insufficient notability and verifiable reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters

The page List of The Walking Dead (TV Series) characters is practically a duplicate of List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. The only difference in the title, is the capitalization of the word "series", and per Wikipedia policy it should NOT be capitalized. Since both lists are large and may have had different information added to them, they should be merged instead of doing a simple redirect, so that no original information is missed. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a simple case of WP:cut-and-paste; there is no need to discuss this further, as things are quickly resolved. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add task forces for the project

The WikiProject Cartoon Network was not active after the project was started by Driveus. Also, I have a felling tha WP:NICK is no longer active any more. Since I converted Cartoon Network, Family Guy, Adult Swim and SpongeBob SquarePants WikiProjects into work groups of WikiProject Animation, and I don't think very not active. I would suggest convert into task forces into this project. Any comments? JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 11:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Name when each season was filmed.

I do not want to sound too demanding, but That 70s show aired in 1998 which was such a long time ago. It even aired in many old years like 1999-2006. I just want somebody to put when each season was filmed so I can know what old year each season was created in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.238.19 (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

List of That '70s Show episodes (season 1) - "The first season of That '70s Show, an American television series, began August 23, 1998, and ended on July 26, 1999". Other seasons give their relevant dates too. GRAPPLE X 03:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to know when each season aired. I would like it if somebody told me when each season was FILMED please.

Television episodes generally begin filming just a few weeks before they're due to be aired. Subtract a month at most from those dates and you'll have a likely filming schedule. Anything more specific than that, and you go find it. GRAPPLE X

Thank you for giving me that information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peta8 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Star Wars tv documentary AFD

Nominated 2 documentaries of star wars. Which seems to be mainly a weak keep for small out of context info. It would be great if it could have larger scope. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Making of Star Wars and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SP FX: The Empire Strikes Back.Lucia Black (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox screenshot

I am being challenged on a WP:NFCC screenshot use for an infobox at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_April_15#File:Pilot_.28The_Cosby_Show.29_monopoly_lesson.png. I don't understand why.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyviols in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 9)

I inform the project of the removal of a series of plots in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 9) that were copyviols from major websites such as The Futon Critic, TV.com or TV Guide. --RanZag (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Persian Music Channel

Hello.
I noticed that this voice has the same text of www.pmc.tv and I started the procedure for the copyright violation on 3th April. 8 days after, the User:Pmcwebmaster (casually, a nickname that remember the channel) revert the page, removing the template.

Today I noticed that the voice has this section:
Link for Copyright Permission http://www.pmc.tv/?page_id=1377

Well, in that link there isn't any permission but only a link at the en.wiki page of the channel.

The voice is also NNPOV.

Can someone explain me of how I can do to terminate this situation? --Gce (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Convenience links (I can't handle this issue at the moment): User:Gce flags the PMC article as a copyvio and informs User:Pmcwebmaster. User:Pmcwebmaster then replies to some concerns on his talk page and undoes the copyvio flag. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Creating a task force for Cheers-related articles

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheers · ( talk | logs | links | watch | mfd ) · [revisions]

The WikiProject Cheers was a failure, so I wonder if anybody here is interested in creating a task force of the show Cheers. I have done Sam and Diane, Sam Malone, Diane Chambers (and my version), Frasier Crane (and my version), "Give Me a Ring Sometime", "I Do, Adieu", and "One for the Road" (Cheers). --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You can propose a new task force for the project without an RFC. Ruby2010's Fringe proposal would be a good example to steal the formatting from; and simply ask interested editors to drop by and register their interest in getting it off the ground. For what it's worth, it might be a good idea to lump Frasier in with this particular proposal, they share the same fictional universe and you double the scope of—and therefore, the interest in—the task force. GRAPPLE X 23:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hate to be frank, but, even if Cheers and Frasier are related in some ways, I don't know if I want to add a new discussion in an archived page of Cheers proposal. Nevertheless, I think I might go for the Frasier task force either here or there. I was advised that a proposal be here per instructions. --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

New Proposal created

I have created a task force proposal. Come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Cheers for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

List of most watched television broadcasts

Can someone take a look at the article with a view to fixing the tables?

The section USA 1950s seems to have been messed up by a more recent table. I did take a look but cannot work out where the problem is coming from. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam research on needed episodes

We have slowly chipped away at the most acclaimed television episodes without articles. Recently, hundreds of wikipedians received Highbeam accounts. With this new resource a lot of subjects can be researched quite freely. For example, I recently created "Hearts and Souls" exclusively using Highbeam. The following episode that that won at least two major best director or best screenplay recognitions remain to be created. In addition, numerous episodes from TV Guide's 100 Greatest Episodes of All-Time remain.

Drama

"Cop" Lou Grant (1979/1980) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"All God's Children" I'll Fly Away (1991/1992) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Therapy" thirtysomething (1988) WGA-Writing, DGA-Directing

"Pilot" thirtysomething (1988/1989) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing

"Trial By Fury" Hill Street Blues (1983) WGA-Writing, Emmy-Writing

"Life in the Minors" Hill Street Blues (1983) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Prisoner" Lou Grant (1978) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing

"The Madman" The Defenders (1963) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"The People Next Door" CBS Playhouse (1969) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Who Do You Kill?" East Side/West Side (1964) WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing

Comedy

"The Matchmaker" Frasier (1995) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing

"Flip" The Larry Sanders Show (1998) Emmy-Directing, Emmy-Writing

"Dear Sigmund" M*A*S*H (1976) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing, Emmy-Directing

"Brown Like Me" Murphy Brown (1989/1990) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing

"Uh-Oh - Part II" Murphy Brown (1991/1992) DGA-Directing, WGA-Writing

"Showdown - Part 2" Cheers (1983) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

"Isn't It Romantic?" The Golden Girls (1986/1987) DGA-Directing, Emmy-Directing

See our progress on important episodes and seasons at Wikipedia:EPISODE#Important articles to be created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dancing with the stars line up for 2013

How does one vote to choose who they would like to be on the show for 2013, My friends and I would like to see Richard Simmons on the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.60.23 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal for Must See TV

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NBC's Must See TV as a proposal of either a Project or a task force for shows from Must See TV and Comedy Night Done Right. Please join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Seinfeld

Wikipedia:WikiProject Seinfeld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is anybody here enthusiastic enough to turn this inactive WikiProject into a WP:task force? --George Ho (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Woody Interruptus#Merger discussion

Should this article be merged into List of Cheers episodes#ep207? Please click above for discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Article for adoption

Hi there,

I am wondering whether your project would be interested in the West Austin Antenna Farm article. --Jerome Potts (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Friends episodes

I noticed today that there had been some rather peculiar edits to List of Friends episodes, replacing transclusions from season articles with raw tables using some formatting that, to be honest, I haven't seen used at any TV article that I've edited. Assuming that it was the work of a misguided editor, as often happens, I started restoring the article to its transcluded format, but received this message on my talk page. I don't agree that transclusion has been discouraged at the featured list discussion, unless I've read something incorrectly, but the nomination, if successful, will set precedents that we will be expected to follow. Of particular note is the non-transclusion of season article episode lists, which will result in duplication errors. Not transcluding the season episode lists really means there should be no episode lists in the season articles, which means content for individual seasons will be in at least two places, whereas at the moment all is generally in the season article and shared with the main list. The changes made to List of Friends episodes also include complicated coding that is going to be difficult to follow, especially for new editors. Some season articles simply won't need to exist. {{Episode list}} currently avoids the need for this. It also adds an enormous amount of content to the episode list article. Without any episode summaries List of Friends episodes has increased in size from 14,184 bytes on 1 March 2012, to 82,569 bytes with this edit. Also to be noted is de-bolding of episode titles, which will require changes to {{Episode list}}. I think this featured list discussion is something that requires involvement by members of this project. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The precedent was set with List of M*A*S*H episodes. And List of The Simpsons episodes There has been discussion about this before yet no one seemed to take notice. For now, until it reaches consensus to be modified to meet MOS:DTT, I'll have to revert the edits. Unless someone can code an Episode list template with rowscopes in Episode titles? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree it needs someone to comment from this project but it needs someone who understands WP:WIAFL and WP:MOS and MOS:DTT. Happy to help. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those articles set a precedent as neither used {{Episode list}} or transcluded content before their nominations. They both used custom tables. List of The Simpsons episodes was promoted shortly after {{Episode list}} was created. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The point being that there are television episode lists that (a) don't use the template and (b) therefore comply with MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That still isn't a precedent and it's completely irrelevant to use of {{Episode list}}. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Never mind! Perhaps we should let the other contributors to the project have their say, after all, that's what you wanted... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I really loathe the practice of transcluding one main-space page onto another; it's overly complex for new editors to grasp and can not lead to situations where changes to one page will inadvertently affect another, but for things like FLC will essentially require the review of pages which are not actually included in the nomination and the promotion of a page which does not actually contain the "featured" content. I personally plan on overhauling the Millennium and The X-Files episode lists to include manually-coded tables situated solely on their relevant pages, and I'd encourage the same practice elsewhere. GRAPPLE X 12:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

What a terrible, terrible idea. The whole point of transclusion is to make "changes to one page ... affect another". It's not good for the article's future to throw that structure out to pretty up and complicate an article to compete for a gold star. It's like having an enema to fit into a party dress. Barsoomian (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the initial discussion was not to "pretty up" anything, nor would it "complicate" it, it was to ensure it complied with WP:MOS. There is a subtle issue here though, which is that if a FL is simply transclusions of stuff that exists elsewhere, inadvertent (or otherwise) changes elsewhere will immediately affect the FL without anyone who is watching the FL from knowing about it. That's a real concern I now have. I think the TV project is just about the only project using this approach. Will need to address this issue separately with the FL community. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The transclusion idea might work in theory, but in practice it's just a terrible thought; we're left with a confusing set of code that new users will be unfamiliar with working around, and while the intention of having transcluded pages making changes universal is deliberate, I'd safely venture that it's not the best approach. Changes to one season's article without the others being similarly changed will lead to the "list of" article being inconsistent, and given the very real degree of entropy these articles go through this is a legitimate concern. I'd much rather have a consistent, easy-to-work-with central page with its own code, even if it takes a bit of work to get it there. Stability is a greater concern that aesthetics, especially if those aesthetics already contravene MOS anyway. GRAPPLE X 13:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"we're left with a confusing set of code that new users will be unfamiliar with working around" - I monitor a number of children's TV list articles, where there are a lot of young, immature and generally clueless editors, and transclusion has never really been an issue. In fact it has been a way of resolving issues, not the least of which is preventing errors caused when there are two articles with, supposedly, the same episode list in each, as happens when you don't transclude. If you have two independent lists, one in the main list and one in the season article, they always get out of sync because new editors will edit one article and not the other; one editor will edit the main list and not the season article while another will do the opposite. Sometimes the differences go unnoticed for months or years and then it's a nightmare figuring out what is correct. Merging the two lists to create two identical lists will quickly turn your hair grey. It's a lot easier to sort out when there's only one list to worry about.

"Changes to one season's article without the others being similarly changed will lead to the "list of" article being inconsistent" - That happens to every other part of season articles now. The transcluded episode tables are usually the most consistent part of these articles. If you're editing season 7 of an article there's very little reason and almost never a need to edit season 1. The only likely inconsistencies are in the headers, and they're easily identified. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Transclusion doesn't just work "in theory" it works in practice. It keeps articles to a readable size. It keeps lists automatically in sync. New editors don't have to set up transclusion, they just follow the link to edit the text as usual. If someone is watching an article with transclusions, they have to pay attention to the included articles. Same as you can be surprised to find an article changed, for the worse sometimes, by a change of a template definition. I could not care less if an article is a "featured list" or not. The " FL community" is not our audience. (Well, not mine at least.) Barsoomian (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

"Readable size"? What does that mean? With or without the transclusions, the page works fine. Nice to know you don't care less about helping with "Wikipedia's finest work", say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"Readable size" means you don't have to page down 10 times to the end. The page may "work" in the browser, the human reading it has to work harder to navigate it. And specifically, what I "don't care about" are people who optimise a page to the extent that it become much harder to maintain. Barsoomian (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, readability is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm much more concerned with our reader experience than worrying that a few KB of text would trouble a few editors... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm definately pro-transclusion for the reasons already detailed above by others. Having worked on the 10-season show Stargate SG-1 intensively for a while, I'll say it was a complete nightmare to keep a 130kB full episode list and the partial episode lists of the 10 season articles identical, particularly since it's still some of an issue if the pilot episode should count as one or two (which affects the count of the other 200+ episodes). And for still-ongoing shows, one change is all that's needed to bring the two ep lists (main list and season article) up-to-date. If transclusions were such a drama (vandalism!), then no featured article should have navigation templates. If there's concern that edits in a season article affect the ep list, then it's even better to have the changes visible in two places and notice them faster, instead of noticing deviations months later and have to figure out what's right. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's one thing to worry about the odd navigation template, another thing to have pretty much the entire contents of a page controlled by the transclusion of a number of templates. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its "another thing". Why it a "bad thing"? The whole idea of the web is that pages link to each other. You don't need to, and probably shouldn't duplicate text from another page, you link to the original. Then you just have one version to worry about. Barsoomian (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Who said "bad thing"? Are you reading another discussion from me? I just said that anyone watching the list page will be completely unaware of contents that changes unless they're watching all the transclusions as well. Unnecessarily complicated. Anyway, as I've said before and elsewhere, until it has row scopes and doesn't use bold, it's a moot point for this and all other articles using the episode list template in becoming featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Twin Peaks peer review

"Episode 2" (Twin Peaks) is currently up for peer review; the review page can be found here. Any input that project members may be able to give would be invaluable, as I hope to be bringing this article to FAC in the not-so-distant future. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 12:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Boldface in the episode template

Aside from the discussion above, List of Friends episodes, there is a more immediate discussion taking place at Template talk:Episode list#Bolding of episode titles regarding episode titles being presented in boldface in List of ''xxxxxxx'' episode tables and TV season tables. So far only one or two editors from this project have bothered to comment. Whether you feel strongly or not about the subject, whatever your position on the matter is, please provide input so that the issue can be resolved. Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-light

FYI, the article regarding green-light is currently up for deletion. The AfD is here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WPSG

I propose a conversion of this Project into a task force. You may improve a consensus by clicking WT:WikiProject Stargate#Turning WikiProject Stargate into a task force? and discussing a proposal. --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Radio programme miscategorised, could do with moving elsewhere

Hi,

The entry for the BBC radio series Twice a Fortnight is under the television portal. I've edited the text to say "radio" instead of "television", but someone really ought to put the article somewhere it belongs. I'm not a Wiki regular, so could someone else sort this maybe? 81.178.30.92 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends

I'm in serious danger of getting into an edit war with users who insist on adding rumours and unsourced information regarding an upcoming film that has yet to enter production, and something called Thomas and the UK Trip which I can only find on fansites. They seem to think that a wikia fansite is a reliable source. Would appreciate some input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

So far, you seem to have done what I would have done in your situation, so I have not many recommendations for that. You have started a talk page section, you use explanatory edit summaries, and there is an invisible <!--comment--> in the article. As for edit wars, if it is IPs and new editors who add unsourced information, just revert them and shortly explain why in the edit summary (that's educational) - it's their own fault if they repeatedly ignore the many helpful hints, and they get blocked for that, not you. In your situation, I would also remove ANY unsourced information regarding the show's future so as not to encourage the addition of more such stuff. If someone really wants it in, it's THEIR WP:BURDEN to find reliable sources, not yours. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I think, having also addressed the two users involved on their talk pages, they seem to have got the point now. But again, thanks for the input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute re episode list transclusion

For some time there has been discussion at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Friends episodes/archive1 as well as Talk:List of Friends episodes#Disputed changes regarding the transclusion of episode tables from season articles into the parent episode list articles. Whichever way this ends up could have widespread effect on the articles within the WikiProject's scope. For anybody who actually gives a hoot (noting that previous requests for input, thoughts and guidance [#List of Friends episodes and the slightly related #Boldface in the episode template] went ignored) and has some advice or thoughts about it, a content dispute resolution thread has now been opened on the matter at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 29#Friends episodes. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 07:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI - high priority season and episode articles moved

The drive create high priority episode and season articles seems to have run its course. I have moved the lists of remaining articles for creation from WP:EPISODE to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes for creation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Seasons for creation. They are listed in the WP:TV to-do list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have created a template for the 1997 and 2009 lists which I have added to all the episode articles which currently exist on the list. Please add it to any articles you create. 03md 16:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Are those templates WP:COPYVIOs?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Facts and opinions are not copyrighted. Expression of facts and opinions may or may not be copyrighted. I have learned about copyrights from Copyrights: Plain and Simple. Probably the list itself is not copyrighted (and even ascending and descending of it are not copyrighted) because these are mere opinions; however, the complete portion of the list is copyrighted because opinions were expressed informatively. --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
• Moreover, the templates themselves do not violate the copyright of the whole portion of the list, as long as they use the non-copyrightable portion of the list. --George Ho (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• You have officially confused the $#!t out of me. I am also unsure whether you know what you are talking about. Have you ever seen some of the discussions about lists like the Time 100. Almost all my Time 100 templates have been deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean: in Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_May_3, it is filed for copyright violation, but it's not yet deleted. The report would last at least seven or fourteen days until conclusion. By the way, the list format of the Time 100 without further explanations about ranked subjects themselves may not be non-copyrightable, but I don't know if that's true. --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 United States network television schedule

Shouldn't we have content in 2012–13 United States network television schedule stating the scheduled announcement dates. I want to see what they are and feel they should be available by now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Person of Interest (TV series)#Description of Kara Stanton - Input requested

Hi together. I tried to resolve a dispute at Talk:Person of Interest (TV series)#Description of Kara Stanton but the other party does not seem to be interested in discussing the issue. Since I'm not an expert on TV-related articles, there is a chance their argument actually reflects consensus for those articles and I'm wrong - unfortunately, without any input, I can't tell. That's why I'd like to request some input here on this (minor) issue. Regards SoWhy 20:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That 70s Show

Anybody thought about doing a wikiproject for That 70s Show?--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

When was this movie created?

Can somebody put when this movie was created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.238.19 (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate there? Also, WP:FILM is probably your better bet for anything film-related. GRAPPLE X 21:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Overblown templates.

I believe that {{Chelsea Handler}} needs to be reduced to just Books by Chelsea Handler. I am not sure how to handle {{Kristin Chenoweth}}. Should the last two lines be removed or should the template just be removed from those pages?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Countdown to Destruction merge discussion

There is a discussion whether Countdown to Destruction should be merged to the List of Power Rangers in Space episodes here. Please comment whether you should keep or merge the article to the episode list. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ghost hunt NZ TV. With Brad, Carolyn and Michael.

Will the above series ever be released on DVD, I have enjoyed this series. I am sure many others have to. Also, would be good if they would go ahead with another series! What do you think?

Caroline Trowbridge, Wilts. UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.9.134 (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

FLs at risk

Hello TV project. Just a quick note to let you know that both List of Dexter episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes are at risk of demotion from featured list status. They were both promoted some time ago and since then standards have changed, as have the lists. I have left some issues that should be addressed at both lists' talk pages so that the lists don't have to be subjects of consideration for removal from featured status. Any questions, don't hesitate to shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone here? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I am, now that Template:Episode list has been updated. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 20:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Lupin III Part II episodes at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Lupin III Part II episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Airdates

There is curtainly a discussion on Talk:List_of_Scooby-Doo!_Mystery_Incorporated_episodes#Adding_episode_airdates regarding airdates, the main problem revolves round what does original airdate mean, since the show in question origins is america should only the american air dates count, or does all air dates count ie original date mean when it first airs ina english speak country regardless which country that is. I would like to get conesus what to do with this type of thing so there is archive to refer to for future reference for all editors.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say the first date is to be taken absolutely literaly without any conditions. It does not matter where a series, season or episode is first aired even if it is not the country where the show was made. I don't understand what the reference to "english speaking country" has to do with the matter. WP does include shows and series in other languages too. Roger (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I mean for shows that are english made and we are talking about the english language of the show then teh first airdate of the epsidoe should be listed, but we should list the country so people arent goign this hasnt aired because they think it is only america that airs them first. but a conesus on what to do with them is reuqired as personal i see original airdate means where it has aired in that language first in this cas eiw as adding uk air dates sinc ei have access to them but if it aired in canda first i want that if it was austrlaia that and so on, if it was holland aired in english i assy that date etcAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so long as it is specified which country or region the airdate refers to; otherwise, I would go with the airdate in whichever country(ies) or region(s) the show is popular or has high ratings. Honestly, though, one airdate is enough, otherwise it pushes WP:NOTTVGUIDE, unless the show is popular in multiple regions (such as Code: Lyoko). Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

But who are we to determine whether a show is poplour enough, if it says original airdate that im[plies to me it has aired, if it says originakl american airdate that applies when it first broadcast in america but not necessarily somewhere else, we cant apply one rule to one show and not another we need clear guidelines on what to do with airdate and this is wha ti am trying to achived guidelines on airdates then ther eno disputing it. wikipeida wouldnt be heading as a tvguide just for listing a airdate from another country if we reach conesus that original means first time in englishAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

All this talk about English is completely missing the point that language is totally irrelevant. If the article is about a Austrian made series that launches on a network in Germany the same principle must apply. Roger (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, but ok lets says for instance scooby doo mystery inc ep27 airs in spanish in say portugal, now that is not really revelent to the english article, that is wha ti am getting at, but if the show airs in argetentina in english then it is revelent. i dnt thinka foreign language epsiode is revelent to the english wikipeida it is to the language wikipedia but not english that why i am emphaising english, and where would we draw the line, a conesus needs to eb agreed on what would be consider appiorate to add and whats not, and most importantly does the show origina country airdate matter more?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd find it quite interesting if it aired in Spanish in Portugal. Airdates in large television-watching countries that can be reliably sourced are generally worth adding provided we don't end up with an indiscriminate list. Focussing only on English-language broadcasts is the wrong way to go. GRAPPLE X 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at it from a different angle: MythBusters airs in exactly the same format both in America and Australia, but only the American airdates are listed there. The same is true of many episode lists, whether they are featured lists or otherwise. Says MOS:TV#Broadcast, "Simply listing every channel the series appears on is discouraged"; this should also apply for airdates, as wikipedia is not a TV guide. In my opinion adding airdates from multiple countries at once, even if there's only one per episode, confuses the reader and pushes the boundaries of WP:NOTTVGUIDE; to maintain WP:CONSISTENCY, all of the airdates should be from the same country. In other words, adding one airdate from, say, the UK to a list of episodes for an American show would necessitate adding UK airdates for every episode in the list, even if American or Australian airdates are already listed, even if the UK airdates fall before the others within the calendar year, which would effectively turn the article into an international TV guide. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 19:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You're obfuscating the issue. Nobody is saying that multiple airdates in multiple countries should be listed. The subject here is only the first airdate. The issue came up because you insited at the Scooby article that only American dates count because it is an American series. Others disagree saying that as a particular season aired in Britain first that airdate should be listed for that particular season. This is the crux of the matter. Roger (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

you basically sumed up wha tiwas typing befor ei got edit conflict--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The example of Mythbusters is not useful because it is always broadcast in the US first before going global. Roger (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I was ranting a bit, but my point is that if the first airdate for one episode is from a certain country, the rest of the airdates should be from the same country to maintain WP:CONSISTENCY. Unless you go with what List of Stargate SG-1 episodes does in specifying the channel or country each airdate refers to, then keep it consistent and have all of the airdates from the same country. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

in fairness mythbusters has aired in uk and australia for a select few epsiode first outside usa, but there been resistance to add those dates, this is why ia m trying to get wider conesus on what to do.

The MOS:TV#Broadcast applies to prose and sections such as The Good Wife (TV series)#International broadcasts, not episode lists. An episode list does not "simply list every channel the series appears on" whether it has one, two, or three airdates for three different countries. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 22:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Especially since Portuguese TV is almost always broadcast in Portuguese, except when they leave something in English and put Portuguese captions on it. But in theory I agree. It would be interesting that a foreign country aired an local-language dubbed American or British show first. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 22:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Body Of Proof was shown in Italy dubbed in Italian before it showed up on ABC's schedule. Certain chunks of Flashpoint have actually been shown in Portugal and been dubbed or/and subbed in Portuguese some 4 months before the episodes were on in Canada and then it was a further 4 months before those eps were on in the US. The first season of The Listener, yet another Canadian show, actually premiered in the Arabic-speaking world over 3 months before it was on in Canada and two days after its premiere it was on in English in the UK.
These days i am one of those having "fun" with the episode list for The Firm wherein NBC (the American broadcaster) keeps deciding apparently at random to withhold, delay, or otherwise relocate broadcast of episodes. With it being a Canadian-made show from an American creator with an American setting and a more solid fanbase and committed broadcaster in Canada it has made for one twisted list. The heading is "Original" and unless otherwise deviating there is one date which is for both broadcasters; if there is a difference it is noted since people from the US might wonder why it says the 19th episode was already broadcast when NBC isn't showing it until mid-June.
The other that i sometimes try to work with is Murdoch Mysteries, a Canadian show that has it's showing first in the UK most seasons. With that show there is a column for UK date and a column for Canada date.
As for adding a British date for an American show, is it better to lie and say the episode was unaired because out-side-the-USA-doesn't-count-for-shit. Happy Endings s02e22, Charlie's Angles 2011 s01e08, dollhouse s01e13, the four episodes of Mr Sunshine, Defying Gravity (they were all on in CA and UK but everywhere the packaging declares the DVD set includes unaired eps just because ABC pulled out early.), and the two episodes of Eastwick. Each of those is unaired in the US whilst most have been on tv in other parts of the world.
That all said, last year a few people succeeded in getting into the Manual Of Style what essentially is 'THIS is English Wikipedia and anything not in English doesn't count because it doesn't exist.' Hence removal of all mention of the first season of Body Of Proof having 13 episodes instead of 9 in its first season and of ABC shuffling the eps into gross continuity issues whilst R.O.W. broadcast the 13 in proper sequence. Hence no mention of Flashpoint being shown in Portugal months before Canada. Hence The Listener lists UK and Canada dates instead of Arabic World and Canada dates. I think it is a form of censorship / i-don't-like-it / racism / whateverism but they did get it codified here. Good luck getting a part of the Manual Of Style declared 'unconstitutional' so that you could include Portuguese or Spanish broadcast of a show if they be the first time the episodes are shown. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

ok these are the possible solutions to the problem as it is, but does not address the issue of First airdate

• We take the country of origin for the show as being the airdate but rename the table header from "Original Airdate" to "Original Country Airdate" so it is being more accurate and reflects the airdates properly.
• We take the "Original Airdate" as when it first airs and we list the airdate of when it airs first (still need to work out what would constitute first but need to try get consensus on what to do first) and we list in brackets the country it aired in so readers will not be confused why they never seen it in there local country
• We use a combination of the above, so "Original Airdate" changes to "Original Country Origin Airdate" and the air dates are listed for that country, but when a episode airs outside the country of origin we put < br /> airdate (country) so it is clear that it has aired outside the country of origin first and where but we do not list multi air dates only the first as in additonal to country of origin. Possible depending on how we regarding first airdate maybe put a note in teh description saying aired on airdate in country in language but we before we get to that type of discussion i think we need a way forward and consensus.

If anyone has any additional ideas how to sovle the issue please add them to my list :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I know I already said that at Talk:List of Scooby-Doo! Mystery Incorporated episodes#Adding episode airdates. There is no right or wrong way of presenting this information. Each has its good points and bad points.

I thought you guys were bringing the discussion here for wider input, not another venue to repeat your argument. You've put your thoughts down in two locations now so if you do want opinions from uninvolved WP:TV editors it's probably best if you don't continue to argue about it here. That's not going to make outside people want to comment.

However, WP:TV isn't going to tell you what to do because it steps over the line of WP:CREEP. You might get one or two people willing to offer advice, but it won't be much different to what I've already said, and in the end you'll still have to come to an agreement between yourselves.

As it has always been, the editors of each article are free to decide between them what it is they want to do. There are a number of ways to present the airdate information, be that the airdate for the country the show is first broadcast, the country it is produced, or both. It is wrong to say "one airdate is enough" and toss in links WP:NOTTVGUIDE and MOS:TV#Broadcast when neither apply to an episode list that is giving the date an episode was first broadcast. Template:Episode list has two parameters for airdates, more if you use any of the auxiliary ones, and there are numerous ways of giving the information to the reader. List of Stargate SG-1 episodes and List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes are both Featured lists, and both have contained airdates for 2 different countries for years with no issue. SG1 has one column and states the literal original airdate, be that in the US or the UK and notes which country by appending the network. Degrassi has two columns of airdates, one for the Canadian dates and the other for the US dates, because some episodes aired in the US either first, in a different order, or were skipped over for years. List of Law & Order: UK episodes does it another way, it uses <br /> in one column and lists both the UK airdate and the Canadian or US airdate, because the episodes aired in Canada and the US first, but it is a British show. List of Iron Man: Armored Adventures episodes is a French/Luxembourg production, and it has 3 columns for airdates, the US, Australia, and Canada, because episodes have premiered in all three markets. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 22:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This proposal and discussion is not about the scooby show list, it is just a example as is mythbuster and plenty of others, the problem is to do with teh title header if it says ORIGINAL AIRDATE it has to be the furst airdate that is how i and many other would see ORIGINAl as , i put forward 3 possible solutions that could solve the problem ther emight be others but a genereal conesus for episode air dates really needs to be reached so peopel can refer to it in the future, if other editor refuse to take part it just making the problem come back in the future when someone else might bring it up, without clear guidelines the problem wil come about again and again whether it be from me or others. im trying to take a step back and offer solutions that i might not want myself but will suit the problem so it wont bea problem anymoreAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that personally, when I see "Original airdate" in the column header I expect it to be the literal premiere date, regardless of region or network, but of course this is about the Scooby Doo list. Every other page handles this matter without any issue. Mythbusters has nothing to do with this situation when all its episodes premiere in the United States (nor Top Gear and Top Gear US for that matter, which premiere all their shows in the UK and US respectively). Decide what airdates you want to present, and title the header whatever is most natural based on that decision. It's incongruous and inappropriate for a decision to be made here that affects all related pages solely on the matter of a single column or column header in an episode list. The project should not instruct what the headers mean and force all other pages to conform when they've worked well in the past, just because one other page can't. The consensus needs to come from that page, and if in the future something similar occurs, we can refer to the lists that have handled the matter with aplomb, and show them that each format is acceptable. The solutions you're offering here under the pretence of solving a project-wide problem are simply trying to fix something that's not broken except on one page. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Mythubusters does air in the uk and australia sometimes before america, i have said this before this is bigger issue, , there shouldnt be each show handles it differently all shows should handle airdates the same, by agreeing a way to it there will be no confussion or disagreement over it, if you want ill look through my entire watchlist and find all shows that have been affected by this, there more than oyu think and it a wider problem jsut user either jsut forget about it or dnt take it further because to many editor here think it american, or sometimes british, when it english including all english regions. ill look at ym watchlist later and point out shows got 1 week old baby to look after so my time is limited but i am little mroe active than last week--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this isnt about the scooby list anymore, i brought it here to be wider discussion on airdates, yoshi the user and i have agree a way forward for the scooby article but that only fixes that problem i want to estbalisha more perment fix so give me tiem to gather evidence :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is only a problem when there is continued disconnect between when the show first airs, and when it airs in its country of origin. I do not think renaming "Original Country Airdate" needs to be done. Unless it is always airing somewhere else earlier, it should be a given to a reader that the "Airdate" is both the first airdate, and the one for the country of origin. If it is not, and this isn't a regular occurrence, then it simply needs to be noted on that page. For example, during the seventh season of Smallville, the series aired 1 day earlier in Canada. This was an anomoly, as it had never done that before, or for any season after that. So, so as not to disrupt the tables, the US broadcasting date was used, with a footnote indicating that during the seventh season alone the show aired 1 night earlier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

It should be noted that i am not talking about american shows airing in other parts of the world first i am talking about any show from any country of origin airing outsie the coutnry of origin first, the term ORIGNAL means just that the first time it has aired regradless where so if it decided to keep it to country of origin air date then we have to make it very clear in teh article that the air date is for the country of origin but might have aired before this date in another country and maybe some way of noting it, this is the problem i have with the current way is the word ORIGINAL and how it is seen i have only made ideas that could solve that but i am happy to add other ideas if someone thinks of them--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am sorry for coming late to the party. At List of The Firm episodes‎, this has been a really big issue. I will leave a note there and hope to get some more input here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Tony :) I wrote in the other section. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)