Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Various TV cast and crew

Hey guys. I've been working for a few years now on articles for the TV series Millennium, and I've gotten round to doing some work on the cast and crew. The problem is that they're almost all people who haven't really been thrown into the spotlight enough to have a lot of reliably sourced information about them out there (Lance Henriksen and Terry O'Quinn being the main exceptions). So I'm not really requesting anything active, but if anyone working on other material happens to notice any of these names popping up in a source, I'd really appreciate a ping about it so I can make use of it (and if anyone is interested in any of these names for their work on anything else, I'd be glad to split a collaboration). I'm mainly hoping to turn up some more on Megan Gallagher first and foremost since the article now is probably a few hundred words from a half-decent GA, but anything else anyone spots would be awesome. Again, just if you recognise a name from sourcing anything else of your own, let me know, but don't be going out of your way looking since I'm already doing that. Cheers! GRAPPLE ^X 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Article titles for The Walking Dead characters

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The WP:RfC is stunted, presumably due to the bickering and WP:Too long; didn't read nature of it. It concerns fictional characters that are primarily known by their first names (or rather solely known by their first names to the general public). In cases such as these, is it best to go with the official full names or with the sole name and a disambiguation to assist it (if the disambiguation is needed), such as in the case of Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? In the case of Faith, she is primarily known simply by that first name, and it was only years later that her last name was revealed and used for subsequent material. It's a similar matter for The Walking Dead characters at the center of of the WP:RfC I started; see Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. And in some cases, their last names are only revealed in the comics or in the television series, meaning that the last names may be known in one medium but not in the another, and that the only way that readers would know the last name is if they Googled it or heard it on television via an interview. So we are commonly left with this and this type of wording that is commonly altered or removed. And since general readers do not know the full names, they won't be typing the full names into the Wikipedia search bar. So if The Walking Dead character articles are to have their full names in the titles of their articles, what does that mean for character articles like Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)? WP:CRITERIA states, "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."

I ask that you consider commenting in the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion to help resolve this. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Tweenies

Can anyone help WP:TNT this? Right now most of its content is WP:Fancruft. sst^flyer 08:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

To diffuse or not to diffuse

This category of American animated television series has a lot of articles in it also tagged with subcategories of that category, e.g. Category:1990s American animated television series‎. This would make that a non-diffusing subcategory, but nationality is not merely a "special characteristic of interest" as the guideline has it, so I've started removing the category from articles, but now I'm doubting myself. Is a rollback in order? 23W 04:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right to remove it; if an article is a member of a subcategory of a larger category, it shouldn't also be a member of the larger category directly. So if it's in the "1990s" category it shouldn't also be in the overall category without timeframes, although the 1990s category should be in the overall category. Category category. GRAPPLE ^X 07:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

List

Hello I wonder if you can create this: List of international telenovelas broadcast by Venevision. I know that there List of programs broadcast by Venevisión. But what I'm trying to say is that I would like to create a list for decades telenovela non-Venevision, but were transmitted on that channel. Something like this List of telenovelas of Televisa in 2010s. Maybe it's wrong, but is not, ask why. If I say it's not possible, I'll understand :).--Philip J Fry (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Comicbookmovie.com

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Comicbookmovie.com. A WP:Permalink for it is here. This source has affected a lot of articles, and this discussion is important. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

10th TCA Awards - Nominations

I'm looking for references to cite for the Nominations at the 10th TCA Awards.

I can already find plenty of sources that only just cite the Winners, but I want a cite for the Nominees.

Specifically because I'm drafting up a Featured List drive for Bill Nye the Science Guy, and I want to find a WP:RS source that indeed confirms the television show was nominated for the 10th TCA Awards.

Please ping or message me on my user talk page if you find anything.

Any help would be appreciated,

— Cirt (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What determines when an actor officially left a show if they still occasionally appear on the show after that departure?

• NOTE: The title of this heading is misleading as the actor in question (Emily Kinney) did not "still occasionally appear on the show after that departure" as she was a main cast member for season 5 and the appearance in question is from episode 9 of that season.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Emily Kinney#Did Kinney leave the show in 2014 or 2015?. There is a dispute about when Kinney officially left The Walking Dead, with two editors stating that her official leave from the show should be noted as 2015 instead of 2014 because "she appeared in a hallucination, and after that she has appeared in a flashback using archive footage." They state that because she was listed in the title sequence in 5x09, and because "[w]e do go by the airing date, not the filming date. [...] [I]t is standard practice to go by the airing dates." Another editor and I have brought up the issue of what WP:Reliable sources state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

"She appeared in a hallucination, and after that she has appeared in a flashback using archive footage." Stating she appeared in a hallucination makes it sound like she was there for 30 seconds and then gone. She was in almost the entire episode from beginning to end and everywhere in between. Almost the entire episode was a hallucination as Tyreese was dying, showing us everything his mind went through while experiencing the end of his life. As for the flashback using archived footage, the only flashback using archived footage in that episode showed Carol and lasted for less than two seconds. Emily Kinney wasn't even in that scene. Flyer, do you even watch this show?Cebr1979 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If there's ambiguity about it, I wouldn't actually use phrasing like "left the show" unless there was a reliable source which specified this (try The A.V. Club's Newswire, they tend to report on casting changes). Perhaps in this instance I would mention that she moved to a less frequently recurring role, then if there are three or fewer appearances in that reduced prominence, list them. GRAPPLE ^X 09:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If she's had a role in episode 5x09 and it is not archive footage, then she participated in the episode. If she was credited as Starring (name in opening credits) for 5x09 then she's counted as starring. You could phrase it as "Kinney's last episode as a regular was on "What Happened and What's Going On", the mid-season premiere of the fifth season, aired on February 8, 2015." And if there are notable circumstances behind her departure besides that she was going to be written off in season 5 anyway, then that can be detailed. Filmography year span can show –2015 as with posthumous film roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This explanation is the perfect happy medium yet, for some reason, this conversation had to get re-started in a different place (with the same editor stating she will even start it again elsewhere). The first conversation on the matter should have been its last.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Cebr1979, there is nothing misleading at all about the title of this section. Kinney has barely been in the show since her character's arc officially came to an end in 2014; that is a fact. And the "the flashback using archived footage" wording I quoted above is not my wording. I am not interested in any reasoning you have since it is usually coming from a fanboy place of reasoning instead of reasoning based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, we go by WP:Reliable sources here, not personal interpretation. And on that note, thank you, Grapple X and AngusWOOF, for weighing in. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, Flyer: There are lots of reliable sources stating she was promoted to series regular (main cast member) for season 5. How many sources do you have stating she was a series regular for season 5 except episode 9? None.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

As ChamithN and I stated at Talk:Emily Kinney#Did Kinney leave the show in 2014 or 2015?, you have yet to cite one WP:Reliable source that states or indicates she was a main cast member after the season 5 episode Coda (The Walking Dead). You can keep talking to yourself today, though, because I refuse to waste my day on you.

To others, the editor who made the "she has appeared in a flashback using archive footage" statement was referring to Forget (The Walking Dead). Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I just don't even understand you. I really don't. I have posted this more than once! 1, 2, 3. Oh, and I don't need a source that states she was a main cast member after Coda (The Walking Dead). I have lots of them stating she was a main cast member for season 5. Allow me to school you on how wikipedia works: if you want to say she was a main cast member for season 5 except episode 9, you need a source for that! Again, Flyer: there are sources that say she was a series regular (aka: main cast member) for season 5. There are none that say she was a series regular (aka: main cast member) for season 5 but only up until episode 8.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of other things to argue about regarding her article, like why do we need to count the number of episodes she was in, which would require a ridiculous string of cite episodes or an official news source that tallies the episode count. If you're trying to figure out stuff like "Season 2 recurring, Season 3 main", I agree that can be cited with any episode in that season that shows the case. Does that need to be discussed here? Do we need to determine the circumstances of when a show gives the actor star billing on an episode where the actor only participates in archive footage? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

None of those are what we are discussing but, I agree with the overall message behind your point which is: No, we do not need to be having this discussion. As I have already stated, "the first conversation on the matter should have been its last." I pray this doesn't actually end up with a third conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, to quote ChamithN, "According to [Kinney], she left the show in 2014. And several other sources report about her departure in the mid-season finale." WP:Reliable sources mark that episode as Kinney's departure from the series. Not any other episode. And it's safe to bet that she knew that her character would be seen in later episodes during that season; despite that, she still considers her departure from the series to be that 2014 episode where her character's arc came to an end. And it's understandable that she thinks that way. Given what WP:Reliable sources state about the date of her departure from the series, and the fact that this is at conflict with what Cebr1979 and the other editor want to do on this matter, I may indeed start a wide-scale WP:RfC on this matter. It will also obviously concern how an interpretation of a WP:Primary source, via the credits, trumps WP:Secondary sources; if I do start such a discussion, it will concern this case and similar cases. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire 5th season was filmed in 2014 so stating she departed in 2014 has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether or not she was a series regular for episodes that aired in 2015.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia states facts, Flyer. It does not "safe to bet." Also, that one, sole link you provided (via ChamithN) doesn't say any of the stuff either of you are saying it says. The word "departure" is never used once in the article. Not once! She says, "But I'm definitely sad to go, and sad to leave a show..." indicating she's leaving... not that she is gone! Of course she would have known by that point she would be leaving, her character just died! She never once states that was her final episode. The reporter states in the opening paragraph, "Actress Emily Kinney made her exit from the series..." The reporter says that, not Kinney. Not anyone affiliated with the show. Just the reporter. And we now know the reporter was wrong! She didn't make her exit from the series with that episode, she was still there in episode 9 (and that's not even a fact you're disputing - you know and agree she was there)!Cebr1979 (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

How about it be phrased as: "She left the show at the mid-season point of season 5." and not mention the specific episode, since that is contentious, and have the article focus on her reasons and thoughts over leaving. Yes, she might have some unaired material, but she has no control over when that would air. They could take footage of her recorded in 2014 and broadcast it in 2016 for all I know. The filmography section would still go out to 2015 to reflect primary sources. If the note section needs to explain that her last starring role was technically the season 5 midseason premiere in February, then do it there with the cite episode. Okay, I just checked Season 5 Episode 9. Yes, she is listed in the opening credits 3:30 into the episode. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Except that she didn't leave the show at the mid-season point of season 5 so why would we say something that isn't true?Cebr1979 (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

She's not listed as starring in episode 10. So cite episode and filmography goes out to 2015. If you need us to look up episodes 11-16 that can be done. Anyway, you can make it more general and say she worked on Walking Dead through the fifth season. If it matters to note that her character was killed in the midseason finale, you can list that too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"filmography goes out to 2015" and "make it more general and say she worked on Walking Dead through the fifth season"

Good. You're in agreement with what I've been saying all along. Now we just have to prepare ourselves to say it all all over again when the third coversation gets started.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, I was stating that it is correct to report that Kinney departed the series in 2014, per WP:Verifiability. Cebr1979 should do his research on the history of WP:Not truth, by the way. The WP:Reliable secondary sources, at this point in time, only cite 2014/the "Coda" episode as Kinney's departure from the series; this is the case whether we state "departure," "exit" or "left," which are obviously all synonyms in this regard. They do not list any of these additional appearances as the point she departed the series or as her final episode. This is a matter of interpreting a WP:Primary source via the credits vs. what WP:Secondary sources state. This is clear by various WP:Reliable sources on this matter. As seen by the "Emily Kinney departed The Walking Dead" Google search and by the "Emily Kinney left the series" Google search, sources only cite 2014/the "Coda" episode as her departure from the series, even recently. For example, this August 6, 2015 Rolling Stone source states, "Toward the end of last year, a part of actress Emily Kinney died. For four seasons, she had played The Walking Dead's Beth Greene — the wide-eyed, singing-prone, optimistic daughter of a veterinarian farmer — but as is the show's wont, her character met its less-than-natural conclusion in November." So, yes, I do not think we should be stating that Kinney was a main cast member/series regular for any of these later episodes, or that she departed the series in any of these later episodes, when no WP:Reliable secondary sources support that. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, "reporter" or not. On a side note: The reason I hadn't mentioned "killed off" in this discussion was so that I wouldn't spoil editors who have yet to see this series but are interested in seeing it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So, in other words, we should be stating information from old sources that have since been proven wrong as though their old information that has since been proven wrong is still correct? That makes absolutely no sense. None.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I reiterate that the Rolling Stone source is very recent, and other recent sources report similarly. None of these sources have been proven wrong on this matter. They cannot be proven wrong by an interpretation of a primary source. We cannot use primary sources to contradict secondary sources. The WP:Primary sources/WP:Secondary sources policy is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The recent Rolling Stone source states that "her character met its less-than-natural conclusion in November." The character. The character died and that was the character's less-than-natural conclusion. It does not state that Kinney, the actor, stopped working/filming/being part of the cast/appearing on the show.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Which part of "Toward the end of last year, a part of actress Emily Kinney died. For four seasons, she had played The Walking Dead's Beth Greene" aren't you getting? Yes, it doesn't explicitly say she (Emily Kinney) left the show. But it does however indicate that her career ended in 2014. You've also said, I'll repeat, "It [the source] does not state that Kinney, the actor, stopped working/filming/being part of the cast/appearing on the show.". For the record, "left the show" is an equivalent to all that. As many sources reported that she left the show in 2014 then surely we must be able to find source(s) about her return (supposedly), if she did indeed return as a series regular. But so far you have not provided any sort of attribution. -- Chamith (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)/

It does not indicate her career ended... she's still an actress today! So a part of her died? Maybe a part of her died when she found out she would soon be losing her job? Maybe a part of her died when she got her script and found out her character was being killed off? Maybe a part of her died because fall was coming and she couldn't wear flip flops for shoes anymore? It does not state "a part of her died because she was no longer a part of the show after episode 8." I love how you admit that "it doesn't explicitly say she (Emily Kinney) left the show" and then continue on with your being wrong about this (I use "love" sarcastically). There aren't going to be any sources saying she returned for episode 9 because she never left after episode eight!!! She was a series regular for season 5 (this now has to be the umpteenth time I've shown you that), and there are no sources stating that episode 9 of that season was an exception (as AngusWOOF confirmed above, she's still billed as a series regular for episode 9)!!!! You're wrong wrong wrongity wrong. Stop with this nonsense. Oh, and "for the record," the Rolling Stone source doesn't once say the words "left the show."Cebr1979 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And... "For four seasons, she had played The Walking Dead's Beth Greene" means she played the role for four seasons: 2, 3, 4, and 5. It does not mean she played the role for three seasons and the first 8 episodes of season 5.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you couldn't comprehend that it was her TWD career I was referring to. Pardon me for failing to mention that nevertheless. And also what I said was that the source doesn't explicitly mention about her departure though it does indicate that her TWD career has ended. You say AngusWOOF confirmed that she was billed as a series regular for fifth season. Yeah, let's take his word for granted (no offense to you Angus). That said, why do you keep directing us to a Google search query? Could please provide something like this? I'm afraid it doesn't mention anything about Kinney being promoted to a regular for season 5. And yes, I've been wrong to you since this discussion began. That's obvious. -- Chamith (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again I'm pointing you to Wikipedia:Attribution. -- Chamith (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to do something for you simply because you're being lazy. If you don't want to go here and click any of the links saying she was promoted to series regular (now at umpteenth and one!), that's your problem.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is Cebr1979, I did invoke a link from your search query (this). And I couldn't find a source (from your search query) which says Kinney was a series regular for season 5. -- Chamith (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, ChamithN, how many have you found stating she was demoted after being promoted? Oh, right... NONE!Cebr1979 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Series regular; season 5. Reliably sourced. Non-primary.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't explicitly mention that she was a regular for season 5, though I can find sources for season 4 -- Chamith (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious right now or are you trolling? The article is all about season 5 and refers to Emily Kinney as a series regular. Anyone with at least one working eyeball can click the link and see how ridiculous you're being right now.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Series regular; season 5. Reliably sourced. Non-primary.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Says she is unlikely to return as a series regular. So this contradicts with all the other sources. -- Chamith (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhmm... NO! It says, "...season 5 has already completed filming and it’s unlikely Kinney will return as a series regular" referring to season 6! A child could understand that. Again, anyone with at least one working eyeball can click the link and see how ridiculous you're being right now.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Series regular; season 5. Reliably sourced. Non-primary.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"To say the very least, Sunday night’s new episode of “The Walking Dead” was certainly strange, wasn’t it? Emily Kinney was the only series regular through the majority of it." Source is speaking about that specific episode.--Chamith (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OHMYGOD! There is no such thing as a "series regular for only one episode!" It's talking about season 5 and refers to her as a series regular! Again, are you serious right now or are you trolling? Cebr1979 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's talking about that specific episode and refers to her as a series regular. As it's an episode from fifth season so yes, it's reasonable to assume the source is talking about season 5. So, I agree with you on that. -- Chamith (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Main star (aka: series regular); season 5. Reliably sourced. Non-primary.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Main stars" at that moment (up-until season 4). Season has not even begun to air at that point. And the source says they refused give any details about the season 5. -- Chamith (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope! Now you're just making stuff up by only seeing what you want to see. It states, "While the main stars are staying understandably tight-lipped (including Beth Green herself, Emily Kinney, who refused to give any spoilers), The Walking Dead's creator Robert Kirkman gave the most excruciating preview of Season 5 yet." This article (you have linked to more than once now) states who was promoted to series regular for season 5 so obviously the cast list (and who were regulars) for season 5 was known at that time! There is no "Main stars" at that moment (up-until season 4)" about it. Those are your words, not the source's.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those were just my words, not the source's. You were correct. Just like my "words" can't be considered valid, your statement on her being among the main cast in 5x9 is not valid unless it's attributed. -- Chamith (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

But all of the sources saying she was a series regular for season 5 can be considered valid... and you have no sources stating she was only a series regular for the first 8 episodes of season 5. My words can be considered valid because they're backed up by sources. Yours are not.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Series regular; season 5 ("her first," season four was only "Also Starring"). Reliably sourced. Non-primary.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Series regular; season 5. Reliably sourced. Non-primary.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

says "Considered to be a "regular"." Ambiguous. Considered by who? The source itself?. -- Chamith (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, not by you apparently but... you're not a source (and thank goodness for that).Cebr1979 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't get my point it seems. Her character played a huge role in the show overall. So of course sources refer to her as a main star. However after her character's disappearance in the season 4, she was not listed as a series regular for season 5. I'm asking for source(s) where it precisely says she was a series regular for 5th season because that was your initial point. And some of the sources you cited contradict with each other. -- 05:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Her character played a huge role in the show overall." HUH? Do you even watch this show? She spent most of her time in her first two seasons standing around in the background doing nothing! "So of course sources refer to her as a main star." So now you have a superhuman superpower to know what everything on the internet secretly means? What it actually says means nothing because you (and only you) know the secret meaning? Uhm... No. Nothing I've given you contradicts anything, you're just being difficult because you can't accept you are wrong. And this link where you claim she was "not listed as a series regular for season 5" explicitly states (after talking about her character's death which happened in season 5) that "season 5 has already completed filming and it’s unlikely Kinney will return as a series regular" meaning she was a series regular for season 5 and it's unlikely she'll return as a series regular for future seasons. Again, anyone with at least one working eyeball can click the link and see what you're saying is false.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It states that she is unlikely to return as a regular for the next half (5x9- 5x16)...and future seasons. -- Chamith (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't!!! You're making stuff up again! It says, "...season 5 has already completed filming and it’s unlikely Kinney will return as a series regular." It does NOT say "the first half of season 5 has already completed filming and it's unlikely Kinney will return as a series regular for the second half." This states the season 5 finale was filmed in November 2014 and the article you are (repeatedly) mis-quoting is from December 2014 so... could you be more wrong? Uhm... Nope! I can't believe how many times I have to say this to you: Anyone with at least one working eyeball can click the links and see that everything you're saying is false!Cebr1979 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Her character played a huge role in the show overall." HUH? Do you even watch this show? She spent most of her time in her first two seasons standing around in the background doing nothing! "So of course sources refer to her as a main star." So now you have a superhuman superpower to know what everything on the internet secretly means? What it actually says means nothing because you (and only you) know the secret meaning?"

- I presented my opinion and you just presented yours. -- Chamith (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The difference being, of course, that my opinion is backed by a reliable source. Yours is not (just like everything else you've said on this subject).Cebr1979 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonetheless, put aside "series regular for season 5" dispute, like Flyer22 said, you have to cite reliable source(s) that states or indicates she was a main cast member after the season 5 episode Coda (The Walking Dead). -- Chamith (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't. I have shown you many links stating she was a series regular for season 5 and you have shown none stating she was a series regular for season 5 except episode 9. Get real.Cebr1979 (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

ChamithN, our main point is supported by various WP:Reliable sources. And that main point is what I stated above: "The WP:Reliable secondary sources, at this point in time, only cite 2014/the 'Coda' episode as Kinney's departure from the series; this is the case whether we state 'departure,' 'exit' or 'left,' which are obviously all synonyms in this regard. They do not list any of these additional appearances as the point she departed the series or as her final episode. This is a matter of interpreting a WP:Primary source via the credits vs. what WP:Secondary sources state. This is clear by various WP:Reliable sources on this matter. As seen by the "Emily Kinney departed The Walking Dead" Google search and by the "Emily Kinney left the series" Google search, sources only cite 2014/the "Coda" episode as her departure from the series, even recently. So, yes, I do not think we should be stating that Kinney was a main cast member/series regular for any of these later episodes, or that she departed the series in any of these later episodes, when no WP:Reliable secondary sources support that. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, 'reporter' or not. None of these sources [, [which range from late 2014 to just about any point in 2015,] have been proven wrong on this matter. They cannot be proven wrong by an interpretation of a primary source. We cannot use primary sources to contradict secondary sources. The WP:Primary sources/WP:Secondary sources policy is clear about that."

So when it comes to edits like this and this one by Cebr1979, he could simply be reverted and a WP:Reliable source could be added to the content he removed. To do so now, however, would result in a WP:Edit war because he is a serious WP:Edit warrior. This is why I will likely be settling this matter with a well-formatted WP:RfC, and I will not let him bog it down if I do. You and I should refrain from responding to him if I start such a discussion; otherwise, it will end up like the Talk:Sasha Williams (The Walking Dead)#Requested move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

LOL! Not a single one of those sources say she left the series after episode 8! None of them (except one) even mentions the word "Coda!" You didn't even look to make sure you're right and, in fact, you're totally wrong! WOW!Cebr1979 (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've told you in the past, Flyer: you do whatever it is you need to do.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I too have noticed his editing pattern. -- Chamith (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And I've noticed you both make stuff up in order to try and be right.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest moving the discussion about classifying whether a character is starring, also starring, regular, recurring, guest, ghost, footage, whatever to the character list for the television series. There are several levels of how the credits are presented, from opening sequence, "also starring" following the opening credits, closing credits, and there probably are guidelines already laid out for this from that list. Anyway, if you're looking for where I got the information about 5x09, it's from Netflix which recently made season 5 available in their streaming service. Supporting the statements with "cite episode" references will also allow anyone to check it for themselves and not take my word for it, perhaps from their DVR recordings or box sets if they don't have access to it online. I was hoping Kinney left in the fifth season was general enough so it doesn't become so technical and generate so much discussion here. But if it's better to not state what season she stopped participating in, or what her last technical appearance on the show is for her actor article, and to just focus on her reactions following the "Coda" episode, that would work too. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's carried over into other pages now, that's the bigger problem (see here and here).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Despite Cebr1979's assertion that "It's carried over into other pages now, that's the bigger problem", these WP:Dummy edits were to make it clear in the edit history of that article that what Cebr1979 was stating has been discussed; it was also to alert anyone who might be interested in weighing in on the matter to this discussion. They were WP:Dummy edits, after all. Flyer22 (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your dummy edits... I didn't refer to your dummy edits.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Scream Queens (2015 TV series)

Three editors and I have been discussing at Talk:Scream Queens (2015 TV series)#Cast and characters quotations. I don't agree with LLarrow's approach, and I ask for this Wikiproject's opinions of if the quotations should be removed or not. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion was reopened. I want it to be closed, already. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This does seem to be a case of WP:IDHT bordering on WP:NOTHERE (we're not Wikiquote, so if someone is only here to ape that site's style, they're not here to build an encyclopaedia). I've tagged the article for its quote problems a few times and it's been reverted each time (without actually being fixed), so I would keep an eye on possible 3RR violations, but I tire of it now. GRAPPLE ^X 23:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Popular TV show means every episode gets an article?

We are having a discussion at Talk:The Duke of Edinburgh Awards about whether being a popular TV show means that every episode should receive an article -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You've quite correctly stated at the requested move discussion there that There is no such thing as a popular enough programme to have an article for each episode. Each episode must show notability of its own, as WP:NOTINHERITED. The article is essentially a plot only summary of a television episode and fails to establish notability so I've nominated it for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Duke of Edinburgh Awards. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The guidelines on this project's TV page suggest exactly what you're saying. But as I'm participating in the discussion of a Twilight Zone episode (WP:Articles_for_deletion/Aqua_Vita), I'm wondering how the one-off removal of an episode comports with keeping a consistent encyclopedia. That is, a reader coming by who sees a box of episodes on their page is now going to see one missing. And another next week. And so on. Is there anything to be done to ensure that WP remains encyclopedic on these topics? Please feel free to chime in on the discussion.--69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple episodes can be nominated at the same time. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In regards to sourcing secondary content for The Twilight Zone, which would be necessary for its retention, I know that The A.V. Club has reviewed a lot of the original run, but I don't know if they have covered the 1980s revival. It might be worth a look in order to prove an episode's notability in its own right. GRAPPLE ^X 11:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help with List of Rugrats episodes

For some time now, an IP editor has been working on List of Rugrats episodes. At first these edits appeared to have been good faith, but many dubious edits have been identified. However, some of the dubious edits are supported by contradictory reliable sources. For example, this edit changed dates for two episodes with Zap2Itsaying the first episode aired in 2002, while TVGuide says the second episode aired in 2004. The problem here is that the two episodes in question aired one after another and it seems impossible that the first episode aired in 2002 with the station pressing paused for 2 years before airing the second episode. The Zap2It source seems more credible given the timing of other episodes, but for other episodes (especially the earlier seasons) TVGuide is more credible. The copyright notice at the end of the episode pair also supports the Zap2It source for the episodes that I've used as an example. Rugrats episodes were, as far as I can remember, and based on the copies I have here, aired in the same pairs and each episode included its title, so it's not possible to mix them up. I've tried to find a reliable, and consistent source for this series' episodes but haven't had much success. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character

I just got through reverting 190.172.168.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) adding a "deceased" or "alive" field to Template:Infobox character at various The Walking Dead character articles. An example is here. I reverted the IP for the same reason that I reverted an IP with regard to List of Teen Wolf characters: We do not treat characters as though they are permanently alive or dead with a "status" field; the reason why is pretty much due to what MOS:PLOT states: By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed (see also WP:TENSE). At any particular point in the story there is a "past" and a "future", but whether something is "past" or "future" changes as the story progresses. It is simplest and conventional to recount the entire description as continuous "present".

This IP has found a way to get around Template:Infobox character not including such a field. So what should be done about this? Does anyone other than the IP agree with adding the field? I don't know if this field is used at any other character articles for shows or otherwise, and if the IP got the field from one of those cases, but, in my opinion, it should be removed in all cases. I'll leave a note at Template talk:Infobox character, Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series), and IP 190.172.168.114's talk page, about this matter, redirecting them to this section for discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel that too many fields in an infobox are a detriment overall, as they tend to lessen editors' focus on the article itself. If somthing is worth mentioning, it's worth putting in prose and citing. So I'm against the addition of such a field, or of anything of a similar ilk. GRAPPLE ^X 08:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Deceased/Alive is nonsense in fiction. Characters are not real persons. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale of "We do not treat characters as though they are permanently alive or dead". --Izno (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Characters are alive or dead in a fictional work at defined points in the plot. Saying a character dies in episode <whatever> for a series or at some defined point in plot for a film is valid but it is nonsense in general to say a character is dead when obviously alive at some point in the work. Only exception (and this may apply for series in question here) is if concept of the work is that some characters may be a ghost, vampire, zombie throughout and that is more related to the type of character, not alive/dead status. I think the IP was trying for something like the "species" attribute for distinguishing type of character. Just wasn't doing it correctly. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree about adding the field. The series isn't about having a scorecard of how many days/episodes/chapters a character has survived. I've experienced similar problems with List of Divergent characters and it had even gone to the point of describing how the character was killed off in the infobox. The character infobox already has "first appearance" and "last appearance". Even then, characters can appear in later flashback episodes after they are dead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Since we treat works of fiction (even serialized ones) as in the present, listing a character as dead or alive in an infobox is out of step with that. Details on characters in the body can discuss the episode when that character died but we have to remember with the magic of television that characters can still appear in later episodes (TWD being a prime case with flashback uses). (To extend this, coming more from the TWD video games, I find the huge tables of "alive"/"dead" for all the characters rather annoying, and in the same lines as the infobox here, absolutely unnecessary for how we treat fiction). --MASEM (t) 15:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is a huge problem on the articles of Sons of Anarchy characters where listing "deceased" next to their names basically spoiled the whole show. EtherealGate (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY issues that affect TV articles

There are currently two discussions underway regarding MOS:IDENTITY at the village pump. One of these is relevant to the TV project. It addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. For example, if a person changes their sexuality and name, should this be reflected in an article about a TV series that ended 32 years ago? The discussion may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Cleared the entire GA Review backlog for Television

1. Thank you all to all our editors who help to contribute to Quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia related to WP:TELEVISION.
2. I've helped to clear the entire GA Review backlog for Television, which can be seen at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
3. I'd like to make a suggestion, here, which is optional, for you to please consider:
4. Suggestion: This suggestion is optional only, but I ask you to please at least read over the Good Article review instructions, and consider reviewing two to three (2-3) GA candidates from good articles nominations, for each one (1) that you nominate. Again, this is optional and a suggestion only, but please do familiarize yourself at least with how to review, and then think about it.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

From The Doctor to my son Thomas - featured article candidate

I've nominated the article about the video From The Doctor to my son Thomas for Featured Article consideration.

The article is about a message sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who, to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/From The Doctor to my son Thomas/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The View (U.S. TV series)

There is some very concerning content at The View (U.S. TV series) in the "Notable episodes" section; in particular, the two subsections titled "Doctor's stethoscope controversy" and "Refusal to hire people with black names". I have not edited the article, nor do I plan to. Putting aside the misleading headings, these subsections send up all kinds of warning flags, especially with regard to violations of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. This show has been on the air for nearly 20 years and there have been an endless amount of controversial incidents and statements by various co-hosts, like these, that received wide media coverage for a few days, then disappeared for good.

It should be noted that the editor who added all the "black names" content first put it in Raven-Symoné, then, over the past few days, added all of it into The View via dozens of edits. So now, all of the content is in both articles.

Since these controversy incidents were just a few of literally dozens of similar random incidents over the years, I don't even know if any of the content from the two subsections should be included, let alone in such massive detail. In any case, I have no idea where to even begin with this, so I hope that some interested and experienced editors with TV show articles could review the entire "Notable episodes" section and make necessary edits to eliminate the over-the-top tabloid feel and turn it back into an encylopedia article.

Czoal (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of episode section with only a series overview table

(moved from "Need your opinion on something..." on from my talk page to here for better forum) Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo, can you share your opinion on this this reversion at The 100 (TV series)? The use of 'Series overview' sections with just a link the the "Episodes list" page and the 'series overview' table is extremely common at TV series articles (including, I'll note for example, at Girl Meets World), so I'm trying to determine if there's any policy basis for AlexTheWhovian's revision or not. Pinging AussieLegend on this as well, for another opinion... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Also take a look at Talk:The Flash (2014 TV series)#Episode headline. Alex|The|Whovian 05:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Am I missing something? That discussion seems to be about a section entitled 'Episodes' that simply has a {{Main}} linker to the "List of episodes" page. But that's not what we're talking about – we're talking about the far more common practice of a 'Series overview' section in which the 'series overview' table from the 'List of episodes' pages is transcluded over to the main article, as is done at say: Girl Meets World#Series overview. The situations aren't analogous, and even if they were the discussion at one series Talk page wouldn't overrule the much broader consensus use of these in a broad number of TV series articles. We need to have a broader discussion at WT:TELEVISION about this if we're suddenly going to rule this widespread practice "invalid" (and I'd oppose such a change, FTR). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You pinged the wrong person. However, the discussion in question was over a user wanting a subsection titled "Episodes" (basically the same as "Series overview" here), that consisted of a link to the List of Episodes page, and a transclusion of the series overview table, exactly as per the discussion here. This was rebuked due to policy dictating that sections must contain prose, and not merely one link and one table. The content does not requires its own entire section, and can easily be added to the Premise section, given that a list of episodes (complete with plots) is merely an extension of this. "Common practice" does not overrule policy, and any instances of this should be changed on sight. Alex|The|Whovian 06:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no "policy" that "sections must contain prose". As far as I can tell, there's not even a guideline saying that, but even if there were guidelines aren't "laws" and WikiProject consensus can certainly supersede them in some cases. However, it's been long-established practice that tables (e.g. like 'Series overview' tables) can have their own sections (the closest guideline I can find on this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists). But, regardless, two editors on a single article Talk page don't get to unilaterally decide to overrule something approaching ten years of common WP:TELEVISION practice on this and declare it "consensus". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and the way you've been doing it lately looks like crap (IMO) – I actually agree with the IP on this: having a link from the TOC to go directly to the Series overview table (as well as to the link of List of episodes article) is actually vastly preferable from a reader standpoint. (But Wikipedia:Readers first is the single most ignored essay on Wikipedia, which is shocking in its own right...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Tagging Bignole, who has taken on this discussion before. Alex|The|Whovian 06:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy that sections have to include prose. Sections can contain just tables. Generally they shouldn't contain just links, that's what the "See also" section is for, but a section with a link and the series overview table is fine. The table doesn't really belong in the premise section because there is nothing about the premise in the table. Some premise sections contain a link to the LoE page, but that's not really correct because the LoE pages cover the plot, not the premise. It's even worse when the series has season articles, because the LoE page then contains neither plot nor premise. The series overview table should be in a separate "Episodes" section. Well, that's not really correct either. The table should be in the "Broadcast" section of an article because the series overview table is a summary of the broadcast history of a series. And, of course, when a table is not the first or only content in a section, the table should include a caption, per MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT, so that screen readers can navigate to the table. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The general guideline is we don't create sections that only house a link to a page (those are "See Also" sections) and we don't create multiple sections of the same topic. Not unless they are subsections of a main topic (e.g., Production --> Sub: Writing, Filming, etc.). In this case, what is being reverted is the unnecessary creation of a section that basically summarizes the episode information. You have a premise section that contains prose, and then an "overview" was created for the dates and numbers of episodes. They are both the same thing and should be housed together. It's about efficient, professional organization of articles. I get that a lot of pages do this, but they should be cleaned up to be more reflective of how to organize an article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The episodes section is an expected section for a tv series article and when a series just starts contains the episode list, without the overview table until there is more than one season. It is then WP:SPLIT out to the list of episode article, leaving summary info (the overview table meets that requirement) behind in accordance with normal split procedures. The series overview table does not belong in the premise section - it is awkward there and out of place from what is expected, it says nothing about the premise of the show. It is much better situated in the broadcast section if a decision is made to remove the episode section but why, it is fine there as it is. After years of tv series articles and some expectation of readers and editors about organization, removing the episode section goes against that expectation and in no way improves tv series articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed true that we don't create sections with just a link but that is irrelevant here because the "Episodes" section contains a transcluded table, and that constitutes content.

"You have a premise section that contains prose, and then an "overview" was created for the dates and numbers of episodes. They are both the same thing and should be housed together." - That's not correct. The table contains no information about the premise. It's a record of the broadcast history, which is not the same thing as the premise, which is the fundamental concept that drives the plot of a film or other story. The series overview is more closely a summary of the broadcast history of the plot, not a record of the premise. If the table belongs anywhere, it should be in the "broadcast" section of an article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The premise of the show is based on a summary of the episodes that have aired (as it's typically a summary of every season). The overview table is a data summary of those seasons, thus they are connected. If you want to put the overview table in Broadcast, that's cool too. The point is really that we don't need a "Premise" section and then immediately following an "Overview" section that just contains a table of air dates. The link for the episodes page is still better suited for the Premise section than any other section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The premise is a statement of the proposition which forms the basis for the series. The series episodes are the implementation of the premise, but do not form part of the premise itself which should remain unchanging throughout the life of the series unless the series get a major rework at some point. It shouldn't take more then a sentence or two to describe the premise for any series. The episode summary is inappropriate for a section labeled "Premise". For a section labeled "Release", though, that includes all forms of how the series is distributed, DVD, streaming, broadcast, international; an episode summary may be more appropriate and point to the episode list article with a see also in the section. Still I think it unnecessary to get rid of the Episode section itself. It is part of the article from the start and as the article grows and a split is needed, that section remains and its content gets replaced by a summary and main link when that section is properly split out the episode list article. WP:SPLIT#How to properly split an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank Geraldo Perez and AussieLegend for their comments here – what they say has been my understanding of the situation. I absolutely agree that there is no "Guideline basis" for the proposition that we need to remove the 'Series overview' or 'Episodes' sections from TV series articles. More to the point, use of these kinds of sections has been a long-standing practice at TV series articles, and the use of these sections shouldn't be "thrown away" like this before a widespread discussion (possibly even an RfC) is held to achieve consensus on the issue first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So the series overview table contains information on the broadcast of the various seasons, so why is this not already just put in the broadcast section? The list of episodes page can be placed in the premise section since it is an extension of the premise with the plot fully expanded. Just to pose another question (that you can ignore), but what is the purpose of the list of episode pages if the series has separate season pages? It just seems unnessary and is just a list of episode titles (that usually lacks sources for aired episodes as well).--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• support sections having prose. we are an encyclopedia, not random collections of factoids. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lots of articles have sections that are solely tables. Discographies, filmographies seldom have more than what is in the tables. The episode summary is content and not just a set of links. The episode info of a series, even the summary, is far from "random collection of factoids". Also note that most of the articles about TV series in WP:FA#Media have episode sections. Sometimes as subsections of some other section, sometime a top level section. Ya, ya WP:OTHER but still good practices exemplified and a change from that need to demonstrate some major improvement, this proposal doesn't. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No guideline requires that. As Geraldo Perez points out, plenty of articles have sections that are tables-only. And the way you want things done, 1) looks like crap in the TV series article pages, and 2) isn't serving our readership (WP:Readers first). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What further understanding and information does a subsection with a link and a transcluded table give? Nothing. The link already exists in the infobox, so technically it's not needed, and if it is not appropriate to add it to the Premise section, the table can be added to the Broadcast section. Less sections, less clutter. And we're not a place to decide on something because it "looks crap" - do attempt a civil tongue. Alex|The|Whovian 21:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A WP:FA#Media example of it being in the broadcast section is The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr.. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Putting the transcluded series overview tables and the link to the list of episodes in a section entitled 'Broadcast history' (likely in their own subsection of that) would be a perfectly acceptable way to do it as well, though I don't find it really all that functionally different than entitling the section 'Series overview', etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If people want these sections gone, they're gonna need to hold an RfC at WT:TV to gain consensus for that (and I know what my vote will be...) It's that simple. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Geraldo, to your first point about the premise not taking more than a sentence or two, then it wouldn't need a section if that was the case. Hence why you don't see it that way. If you'd prefer, then rename "Premise" to "Plot summary", or something else. But if you contend that you only need a sentence or two (and I'm not actually disagreeing) to be a "premise" then you don't need an entire section devoted to that. Now, yes, we do have sections that are solely tables, but in the case of the series overview table it's basically a table that does nothing more than show release dates of a season (which is kind of already encompassed in the other tables on the page anyway). Thus, if you feel that it is important that it needs to be higher up (and not down in the broadcast section) then it should be placed with the "Premise", "Plot", or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't need an entire section devoted to a couple of points of data, which already exist elsewhere on the page. Also, we don't need an RfC to remove "sections", as we don't have anything at the MOS that says the sections need to exist. It's really about professional organization, and what I see more often than not is that people don't know how to properly organize pages (just like they don't know how to properly format paragraphs) and take shortcuts like just creating new sections for small information that can easily be housed elsewhere.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with GP that these tables don't belong in the 'Premise' or 'Plot' sections – they simply don't belong there. Again, putting them in a section called 'Broadcast history' is preferable to removing them entirely (which seems to be what some are implying we should do instead). And I disagree that they contain "little information" – I often am going to TV series articles just to find out either, 1) how many episodes aired in a particular season, or 2) how many episodes have aired in a current season (to try and figure out how many are left...). Forcing readers to go to the episode list article for such info is totally unnecessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If a separate episodes section is needed so badly, why not have it like Haven, Once Upon a Time and Castle? That is, where the section not only contains the link to the LoE page and the transcluded Series Overview table, but prose (as we're requesting) in the form of premiere and season renewals? Alex|The|Whovian 22:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, when I say "little" I mean not a lot, not "not important". I.E. Dates and numbers. That's basically two things. You shouldn't be finding "current" season numbers, because that's not what that table is used for. If people are using it for that, then it's being used incorrectly. The problem that I see with Haven (I didn't check the others) is that they are using it like the Broadcast section and identifying when a show was renewed each season. The reality is, after that season airs, when it was renewed becomes trivial information. We've allowed a lot of articles to act as "current event" pages that include information as it comes out, yet we often times forget to remove that information later when it's no longer relevant. Knowing that random show Y was renewed in October of 2014 is not relevant 10 years later. Not unless there was something special about the event (e.g., it was two years after the previous season ended, it was likely to get cancelled but was given one more shot, etc.).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be right that I haven't used those tables for "current season" info (and so have maybe had to go to the episode lists articles for that info...). But I've definitely used those tables to, for example, figure out how many episodes certain series have aired in certain seasons, and I'd personally consider that relatively relevant information to display at the main series article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: In some cases, that is how it's been done – it's just that sometimes that section has been called 'Broadcast history', sometimes it's been called 'Episodes', and sometimes it's been called 'Series overview'. It just that for a lot of (older) series either no one has added prose (or there's been no prose to add because of little in the way of overseas broadcasts?...). But the way it's done at the three articles you listed is the way this has generally been done in the past, whether with prose or without. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, for some reason I feel like you think I've said that the overview table needs to be removed. That was my stance originally (kinda of is in general), but I have not said that at all in this discussion. I've merely been arguing for where the location should be. Again, I'm not saying the information is important or trivial, I'm saying there isn't a lot of information in the table and doesn't really need an entire section by itself. The average reader has enough intelligence to know that basic information about the plot of a show can be found in places called "Premise", "Plot", or "Overview". Whether they are looking for a summary of the show, a link to the episodes, or a table outlining the number of episodes per season and when the season's started and ended. There's no reason all of that cannot be housed together in a neat section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually haven't gotten that impression from this discussion. But on your other point, I think a number of feel like the 'series overview' table doesn't belong in the 'Plot' or 'Premise' section (I tend to agree with Geraldo Perez on this – 'Plot' is rather the story "what?", while the episodes table is more of the story "how?", and thus seem like different topics best served by different sections). It sounds like the consensus we're starting to come to is what AlexTheWhovian (and Geraldo Perez) suggested above – some kind of separate section (e.g. 'Broadcast history' or 'Series overview'), but preferentially with the section supplemented with some kind of text. It seems like that solution might satisfy nearly everyone. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I also suggested it.[1] A long time acgo, actually.[2] just sayin' ... --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast sections typically already exist, except generally for domestic information (because we shouldn't just be writing prose that says "It was renewed on this date and then aired on this date". That just comes across like news reports that have remained after announced. The reason we generally include foreign ones is because they are often not reported on at all over here and it's important to note that a show has been released overseas from it's original location (whichever direction that is). The overview table could fit into a broadcast section (probably more appropriate). I just don't think it needs its own section for what amounts to dates and episode counts, which is better reflected in either broadcast, or the premise section (because you're linking to the episode list page that contains that information there as well anyway).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So are the proponents of removing 'Episodes' sections at TV articles / adding text to them also proposing doing the same to 'series overview' and 'episodes' sections at List of episodes / season pages? Just wondering because this conversation seems pretty arbitrary/inconsistent to me (not that I'm suggesting breaking up any of these sections). What problem are we trying to solve here? -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The series overview table in the LoE page simply summarises the broadcast history in the original country and no additional text is generally necessary. This is also true at the main series articles, where a separate "episodes" section can exist. However, there is a "Broadcast" section in most series articles that details broadcast history in other countries, so it is more appropriate that the series overview table go there, since the table summarises the original country, while the prose summarises other countries. The problem we are trying to solve is one of consistency. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Cast order

According to the MOS, "new cast members [are] added to the end of the list". But then, characters that enter a series earlier would be higher up in the character list, no matter how soon they leave the series. Thus, it is common practice to order (in particular) the recurring characters by number of episodes they appear in (to match IMDb style).

For currently airing seasons, according to the MOS, new characters start at the end of the list but then are diligently sorted up after every new episode (which is missing in the MOS), e.g., Empire (season 2), Scream Queens (2015 TV series).

At least for recurring cast, this IMDb sorting is used in a very large number of pages of past shows, too (all seasons of the following shows: American Horror Story, 24, Pretty Little Liars, Louie, The Good Wife, Community, The Vampire Diaries, Supernatural, Mad Men, Angel, Justified, Bones, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, Alias, Damages, One Tree Hill, and there are many more).

This should probably be reflected in the MOS, too? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the practice of "Character (X episode)" should not be used. It is not encyclopedic in main or season articles. As such, main characters are listed in billed order (which is what the production decides), with new cast members added to the end for each season. For individual season articles, the order should reflect how the main cast members are billed for that season. For recurring and guest cast members, it is best to just list them alphabetically by actor's last name. This way, there is no bias given to any particular person over the other, and removes the need for the "(X episodes)" distinction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

For recurring and guest, I tend to list them in order of appearance on main and season pages, but either way, either way. It makes sense to order main cast members first in initial billing order, and then any newly added cast members to the end of the list. That way, it reflects the chronology of the main cast as best as we can.

Besides all the other really good rationales, listing by episode number can get a little tricky sometimes, as when an actor is credited for an episode but doesn't actually appear in the episode. For example, if I recall correctly, Hal Ozsan is credited in an episode of The Blacklist that he doesn't appear in as part of his recurring role, so he's credited for five episodes but actually only appears in four. (Would one have to list him as five episodes or four?) Listing in alphabetical or order of appearance circumvents the odd moments like that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Favre1fan93 and TenTonParasol: for the explanations. Those are good points that I can certainly agree with.

On the other hand, the shows I gave above comprise already more than 100 articles of past and currently airing seasons (one of which is even a GA) of popular shows that use the "Character (# episodes)" format and sort the recurring cast by that number, which then probably set a, or better, lots of bad examples.

Doing some more searches, it seems to me that a great part (maybe even the majority) of current or recent long-running shows' season articles use this sorting for recurring cast (speculatively, following IMDb style). Unfortunately, once the list is sorted by number of episodes (however that number was determined), it is not easy to restore the order of appearance. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Pointing out that "Character (# episodes)" is IMDb style is exactly one reason why that format should not be used. We are not IMDb (nor is a reliable source for that matter) and I can probably guess that 95% of the users adding this formatting are IPs or unregistered users, who are copying the text from IMDb and just reformatting it for Wikipedia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Then it might be good to keep eyes on some seasons that have just started, such as American Horror Story: Hotel, Pretty Little Liars (season 6), Empire (season 2), Scream Queens (2015 TV series), Louie (season 5), The Good Wife (season 7), The Vampire Diaries (season 7), Supernatural (season 11), Bones (season 11), which I can guarantee to all end up IMDb-style very soon otherwise. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Since it is mostly added on as the season airs, it can also lead to the constant rearrangement of characters, and in the past I've seen people add a character again because they don't see them already in the list when updating counts. And more recently for the fifth season of Once Upon a Time, some characters ended up being miscounted because they appeared briefly in one scene and didn't speak (he was a series regular to so the credits didn't help). Don't know how you guys go about adding things to the MoS for the season / main articles but it may be worth doing so for this, since it can look untidy.

@Dark Cocoa Frosting:, when people are ordering them by episode number, are they doing so to the series regulars as well? Because if they are then that definitely should not be happening.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ditto51: I looked through a lot of them and the de-facto standard for current and recent season articles appears to include the (# episodes) for all characters, and then sort the lists for recurring / special guest / guest (but not main cast) by the number of episodes. Yes, this leads to continual reordering for current seasons. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Blue for low ratings, red for high ratings?

Hey all, I've noticed a minor trend in some TV articles, and this seems the most appropriate place to get some consensus happening. Across numerous articles, I see the use of blue to indicate low ratings numbers, and the use of red to indicate high ratings numbers. This seems the exact opposite of what it should be (assuming it should be at all). Red connotes danger, a warning, so in TV, red seems the proper indication for "uh oh, this show's doing poorly." Any thoughts? Anyone care? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thinking elsewhere. Blue=cold=low temperatures, red=hot=high temperatures. The same thinking uses green to denote rainfall instead of blue for water because rainfall makes everything green. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I generally think that this sort of color coding should be avoided because 'low' and 'high' are relative terms. Low for NBC might be high for TV Land; low for Agents of SHIELD might be high for Impastor. While Hannibal might experience a precipitous ratings drop (again, I don't know if that's true, just an example), from a different standpoint, its rating may appear as high scross the board. Setting a hard and fast point for what is considered high and low impossible and seems imprudent due to the relativity of this from network to network, show to show. As for within the show, it seems a constantly shifting marker, and it seems to be not worth the effort of upkeeping what the highest and lowest numbers are. Oddly, based on a quick look, it seems to be prevalent in Asian shows? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This just seems like a highly unnecessary use of color in articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Judging a rating to be high or low without standardized published criteria would be synthesis or original research. If the broadcast company lists such criteria up front (e.g. "All our shows must gather an average 2.0 rating or higher to be retained" or "must score over 5.0 during sweeps") as with some contracts for performance, then it could be possibly notable. Distinguishing which shows had the highest ratings for their time period or for the night might be worth a footnote. But such information can be detailed in the reception section for the article/season. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Correction Hey everybody--My communication was faulty: They're not using the color to indicate "hey, this is a great rating" or "hey, this is a bad rating", which would obviously be WP:OR. They're using colors to indicate the highest and lowest numbers in a range. 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 9. Sorry! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean like season high and season low? Okay, that could make sense but should it also be footnoted with such information so it is compliant with MOS:DTT? I think the princess one already does that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If the table is sortable, you can find out this info, and if it is notable for some reason, you can mention it in prose. I still don't see the need for this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help figuring out what to do with Kalyeserye articles

Hey all, Kalyeserye is a strange case. Quick background: there is a long-running show in the Philippines called Eat Bulaga!, some sort of daily daytime variety show. Within that show, is a segment called "Kalyeserye" a somewhat serialized show-within-a-show that has recurring characters, and seems to center on a love story between a "love couple" Alden and Yaya Dub. Now here's where it gets weird: It's mostly improvised, as far as I can tell although there seems to be some semblance of a story, which they do in a kind of soap opera parody style. Some of the characters seem to not actually speak, rather, they pantomime to other actors' voices and sound effects and communicate with one another over a video chat app. I really am having a hard time explaining it, because it doesn't make any frickin' sense! Here's a video (official GMA network site) to give you an idea. At 2:19, one of the Lolas (grandmothers) has a dramatic telephone call over dramatic music (perhaps speaking to the show's Mysterious Caller?). There is also interaction between some of the characters and the show hosts. Blah blah blah.

Anyhow, this weirdness apparently makes it very difficult for editors to write episode summaries, for instance this one, which introduces a lot of facts from the episode, but leaves you wondering what the hell the story is. And if we don't really understand what the story is, how does anyone write effective episode summaries? Some of the earlier ones at List of Kalyeserye episodes come close, but then some of the more recent ones really go off the rails. It seems that the tendency is to just point out things that happened, rather than to deliver a cohesive explanation of plot, if there is one. Also, the main Kalyeserye article doesn't do a fantastic job of explaining what the series is. Anyone have any thoughts about how to improve these articles? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I'll mention that the show is live, so I imagine WP:V factors in here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

A little help

1. I've helped to clear the backlogs at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
2. It previously looked something like this ----> and now looks something like this.
3. But there's still two (2) nominations there at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama -- that I cannot review myself. :)

Any help would be appreciated. :)

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Miniseries template TFD

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_27#US_miniseries_decade_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Interested in nominating an article for Good status?

I considered posting this message on the assessment page, but figured this talk page was on more watchlists. I have worked on Eaten Alive (TV special) some, but not enough to feel comfortable with the content. The individual who expanded the article to its current state does not seem interested in nominating it for Good status, but I think it may meet criteria. If there is a project member who enjoys promoting article to GA status, this may be an easy project to take on. Thanks for your consideration, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The X-Files (2016 miniseries/season 10/miniseries/other?)

It would be great to have input from this project's editors on the naming conventions for the upcoming "event series" of The X-Files, which is being called "Season 10", "revival", "reboot", "event", "miniseries".... Please chime in, thanks: Talk:The X-Files (2016 miniseries)#Season 10?. Jmj713 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting season and episode

I have found there is not a consistent way to notate season and episode for television series. Sometimes they are written as 1X19; 01x19; season 01, episode 19; or season 1, episode 19. Which is preferable? (I lean towards the last one. This was previously discussed at Manual of Style/Dates and numbers) LA (T) @ 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Where are you noting it out, and in what context? Also, are we talking about shows that don't have names for their episodes?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

In most cases the actual episode number is of very little help, unless a lot of episodes from the same season are being referred to. Since I'm a big fan of MOS:NUMERAL, which says Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, and giving readers some extra help, I generally write something like season four episode "Murder in The Air". When referring to a series of episodes in a season, I use "season 4, episodes 1, 2, 4, 5, 17–23" or something like that (spelling out the numbers in such a case is messy at best). --AussieLegend (✉) 04:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Bignole and AussieLegend: I am trying to wrest some sense from Oceanic Airlines and Morley Television sections and possibly other articles which lists television episodes like those two do. LA (T) @ 23:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I'm not sure I would say "season, episode, episode title". I might just say, "season four's 'Episode Title'". The number becomes irrelevant when you have the title. As for writing, the seasons should always be spelled out (unless you're like The Simpsons with 25+ years.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Bignole, so how does this get into the Manual of Style/Television? LA (T) @ 07:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, it's not something likely to be covered at MOSTV. When it comes to just spelling out season numbers, that's already part of the WP:NUMERAL. It should always be spelled out (unless it's the article title). As for the order of saying "Season ten episode 'Title'", that's more of a professional writing standpoint and not something likely to be dictated directly by MOSTV. We don't typically cover basic writing guides at MOSTV, just layout, appropriate information, etc. What I would do is point people to WP:NUMERAL for spelling out the season numbers, and then just be clear that professionally it's better to write it as "season number's 'episode title'", or something like that. The actual episode number, if it has a title, is irrelevant at that point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be consistent within the article, so if it goes by season 4 for the bulk of the prose, then keep it as season 4, as if it were books and referring to volume 4 or chapter 4. So capitalizing "season" would not be needed. Sometimes I prefer the number in case I need to mention multiple seasons like "She was voiced by Katie Griffin in seasons 3-6." I don't see a reason to use SEE (e.g. episode 301) or SxEE (e.g. episode 3x01) format as typical of the TV references unless there's no other way to distinguish the episode like if it didn't have a title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

In most cases we should be using plain English, to suit the sentence and its context: In season 2, episode 13, "The BFG-9000", B.J. fends off a horde of demons; or In "The BFG-9000" (season 2, episode 13), B.J. fends off a horde of demons; or whatever (using "series" instead of "season" for British shows). Shorter forms should be reserved for infoboxes, tables, and highly compressed lists, and use abbreviations anyone can parse without being w@r3z d00dz: sea. 2, ep. 13 (British: ser. 2, ep. 13). If we wanted, sn. 2, ep. 13 (Brit.: sr. 2, ep. 13) would be slightly shorter but still parseable. We could also use s. 2, e. 13, for simplicity.

The problem with the geeky formats is they are not used consistently, on or off WP, and they are meaningless to people not already familiar with them. If for some reason we were to settle on one of them, s2e13 is much clearer than the alternatives. Also, the "x" in the examples given above is actually × and should be rendered thus, per MOS:NUM. There's no need to use a leading zero (that is mostly done with TV-pirating torrents, for alphanumeric sorting reasons, and torrent sites mostly use s02e03 format, anyway, not "02x13"). If we actually came to a consensus to use ×-format in a table, it should be "The BFG-9000" (2×13), "Return of the BFG-9000" (10×3), but the s2e13 format really is easier to understand. If for some reason we want a leading zero (I argue against it), that would only be done for the short numeric form: s02e13 or maybe 02×13, not for plain English: season 02, episode 04 or abbreviations thereof; we don't use leading zeroes for any other such constructions (e.g. dates, measurements, book volume numbers, etc.), also per MOS:NUM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Question about TV shows and production

Should we only include TV shows that have begun production in "List of programs broadcast by X"-type articles? TV networks perpetually have thousands of shows in development, and only choose around a few to go into production. I cut a few shows from Nickelodeon's programs article since no further word about them was made since they were initially announced.

So, to re-iterate my question, should we only include shows that have begun production in these kinds of articles? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 13:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say wait until they've actually been broadcast, as there's no telling how late in the game a show might be cancelled and not make it to air. GRAPPLE ^X 13:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a different list from "List of programs produced by X". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox television changes

I recently modified {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}} to comply with WP:IMGSIZE, which states that image sizes should not be forced without good reason. This change should not have been noticeable, but it does make image formatting easier. In the old days it was necessary to fully format the infobox image: e.g. | image = [[File:image name.jpg|250px|caption text|alt=alt text for image]]. Implementation of Module:InfoboxImage some time ago supported the old format but added some parameters so that it was only necessary to include unformatted information:

| image         = image name.jpg
| image_size    = 250
| image_alt     = alt text for image
| caption       = caption text

The latest changes support both formats but now also allows for automatic image sizing based on user preferences. Most TV articles that I checked used 250px as the default image size, so this is reflected in the infobox changes meaning that, since captions are not normally necessary, only the following needs to be entered:

| image         = image name.jpg
| image_alt     = alt text for image

In the event that a size other than 250px needs to be specified, the image_upright parameter my be used to specify the image size:

| image         = image name.jpg
| image_upright = 1.22
| image_alt     = alt text for image

The value required for image_upright is easily calculated by dividing the desired image size by 220. For a 270px image, image_upright = 270 / 220 = 1.23. A convenient table has been included in the template documentation. Please note that the previous methods of formatting are still supported. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Ordered episodes' list

On any page of an "episodes' list", to prevent the disorder I found a system: in place of "width:%" insert this method (<'br />) on a determined space of a title or writers of that episode. Example on the animated series Be Cool, Scooby-Doo!:

• Actual: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Be_Cool,_Scooby-Doo!&oldid=690051410;
• My Version (if you click Edit): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Be_Cool,_Scooby-Doo!&oldid=689984664.

Luigi1090(talk) 11:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Settings widths is actually preferable to adding line breaks (and easier to do with {{Episode table}}), especially for readers with larger screens. Alex|The|Whovian 10:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to praise Luigi for finally soliciting feedback from the community about this. Thank you, Luigi. If any of the regulars have some input on this, I'd like to understand what the impact of line breaks would be for data parsing. Would a machine interpret this as two titles, or one title? Obviously it would depend on the machine, I guess. I do, however, think that breaking up a title with a forced break is not the ideal way to populate tables. It also creates a problem whereby, if I wanted to edit in the area of "Where There's a Will, There's a Wraith", and I copy the title from the live page, go into edit and CTRL+F and paste the title, my browser won't find it, because it should be looking for "Where There's a Will, There's a<br />Wraith". So it's one more hoop that editors have to jump through. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Episode count templates

Category:Episode count templates contains a number of templates that consist of "onlyinclude" tags and a raw episode count, and occasionally a date. All of these templates have been nominated for deletion. The discussions for each may be found at the following locations:

• Template:Aqua Teen Hunger Force episode count
• Template:Coronation Street episodes
• Template:Degrassi episodes
• Template:Emmerdale episodes
• Template:Family Guy episode count
• Template:Futurama episode count
• Template:South Park episode count
• Template:SpongeBob SquarePants episode count
• Template:Supernatural episode count
• Template:The Simpsons episode count

--AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

All of the templates in the category have now been nominated so I have completely updated the above post. Most of the discussions are on the same page. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Needs further action

All of the above discussions have now closed as delete, with the exception of the discussions for {{South Park episode count}} and {{The Simpsons episode count}}, which have closed as "No consensus". However, even these templates are no longer in use. It seems to me that we should be discouraging use of these templates, as they are unnecessary. If it is necessary to transclude episode counts there is a simpler way than creating templates specifically for the purpose. Simply wrapping the episode count in <includeonly> and </includeonly> so that you see something like "| num_episodes = <includeonly>140</includeonly>" allows the episode count to be transcluded anywhere. At the article where the count is to be transcluded, it is done the same way that we do when transcluding episode lists. Instead of adding "{{Futurama episode count}}" to an article, you add "{{:Futurama}}", which is a lot simpler. This is the process now being used at many episode lists. See, for example, this edit and this one, in which AlexTheWhovian added the feature to Scorpion and List of Scorpion episodes. This is far easier than creating {{Scorpion episode count}} and having to update it constantly, since we already update the main series articles. Opinions? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As a note, I have started an RfC here. Your input is requested. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Since this discussion was started in order to gain input from TV editors per the TfD closer's instructions, the RfC should never have been opened. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

All remaining templates should be deleted, and transclusion implemented. It is much easier and simpler and removes redundancy. Update the number once on the main page infobox and the correct number appears everywhere else you need it. And this works because you shouldn't be transcluding anything else off the main page, so this won't present any issues of unwanted content moving over. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This also goes against WP:TG guideline 1: "Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree 100% with both of your sentiments. Simplification is always the best way to go as far as I'm concerned. LLArrow (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we should delete the templates and transclude. However, in my heart of hearts, I think we could significantly reduce the amount of numerical vandalism through the use of semi-protected templates, however this is a proposition that irritates a lot of editors who are into the whole "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" concept. I'll avoid rambling further. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what the discussion is about, as the above templates are in fact already deleted (with one exception). Transclusion seems to be better, if one really really really (really) needs this information on different pages at all. What remains to be done is to document this standard solution: a good place might be the {{Infobox television}} documentation. Furthermore, if there really is a big need for those, maybe it is possible to build this feature directly into the infobox, so that the episode number is automatically put into a transclusion section? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There should be no problem enabling transclusion in the infobox. Since the vast majority of TV articles are not transcluded, this should not cause any problems. A switch can be included so that it is possible to turn transclusion off in the event that it is not needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd support building the feature into the infobox. Though we'd really have to document this well, because based on what I've seen, I don't know how much the average user or IP user knows about transclusion and how it works. Shall we move the discussion over to the infobox talk at this point? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Got the message on my talk page, not sure what I can contribute to the discussion. I implemented the "includeonly" tags on multiple series' pages after finding another where it had been done, and had only one user have an issue with it before I explained it and the accepted it. Also not sure how we can implement it within the infobox template... Adding the tags will affect the transclusion of the template itself. (Noted, I'm also guilty of creating {{DW episode count}}, where this transcludes to two instances on Doctor Who and two instances on List of Doctor Who serials, so it only needs updating once and not in four locations.) Alex|The|Whovian 10:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all; just to note that on the basis of the clear consensus in this discussion to use the article-transclusion system as general practice, and on this request, I went ahead and deleted the last two remaining templates from the batch of TfDs at the top of this thread, and annotated the TfD discussions to match. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dino Dan

The article Dino Dan is in need of assistance. A copy-edit has been done but it still needs an infobox and logo. 108.20.47.212 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

108.20.47.212 The article is not protected, so this is something you can help with. I've started the infobox. If you find anything else to add, please do so. I was reluctant to add a starring cast, since in the episode credits there are no "starring" roles, only "featuring", and the credited actors aren't very consistent. I looked at "The Chicken and the Dino" and "Switched at Nest". Trek Buccino seems to be a common name between these two. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

When is a miniseries not a miniseries?

There's a move discussion going on at Talk:Bag of Bones (film) which needs more participants to build consensus. The underlying question is whether a miniseries can have only two installments, or whether the minimum number of segments is three; and, if consensus is that three is the minimum, what to call two-part television events that are longer than a movie but shorter than a miniseries. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to the conversation there. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Navbox templates

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have broad consensus?" at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements. Montanabw^(talk) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club

Does anyone here watch Bad Girls Club? Back on 8 November I made several corrections to the article only to find yesterday that all of the fixes had been reverted, predominantly by one anonymous editor who seems to be asserting ownership over the article and doesn't use edit summaries or respond to posts on his talk page. Virtually every edit since 8 September by an IP or newly registered editor has been vandalism or the addition of unsourced content. The vandalism is easily fixed but I have no idea what in the article is correct as none of it is sourced and it really needs somebody familiar with the series to have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Severe fancruft at List of The Big Bang Theory characters

I've been watching List of The Big Bang Theory characters for a long time and have been frustrated by the amount of fancruft creeping into this article. A good example is the section titled "Appearing in one scene only", which I removed earlier.[3] However, as has happened more than once in the article's history, the removed content has mostly been restored, this time to a section titled "Appearing in one episode only".[4] The justification for this restoration is "Joyce Kim was mentioned in several episodes besides the one scene in which she appeared", "minor characters who are relatives of the main characters (Amy's mother, and Raj's cousin) should also be listed" and "Analeigh Tipton, should also be listed given that Tipton appeared on the show in a different capacity".[5] The entire article, some 17,200 words, is supported by 64 citations using {{cite episode}} and two from tv.com, leaving only 9 that are non-primary, reliable sources. This article could really do with some extra eyes and editors as I'm having a hell of job trying to keep the article under control. We really shouldn't have such crufty articles for any serhies, let alone one as popular as this. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've begun to do some work on it, and will revert other reverts until this discussion comes to an agreement. Some of the maintenance tags have been in place for almost four years. If that's not an indication to the editors of the article that something is wrong, then who knows what is. Alex|The|Whovian 05:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I watch the show, so I'll add the page to my watch, and see what I can do to help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

By far not the worst, though! For comparison: List of Scream Queens characters, List of Pretty Little Liars characters, List of The Vampire Diaries characters. Maybe have a look at those, too.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I object to the massive removal of content that was done in 7 edits a few days ago.

• Just because a character played him/herself does not mean that (s)he is not a character. This is fiction, so all people on the show are characters
• The blanket removal of characters who appeared in only one episode is completely unjustified. Case in point: Joyce Kim. She is mentioned in many episode -- still mentioned in the article -- yet because she appeared in only one episode she was removed from the list.

I would say that all characters that have more than a casual interaction with the story should be included. Examples of characters that should not be included are: a clerk at the DMV, a mall security guard, the minister who married Leonard and Penny. Basically their interactions with the story was just casual. --Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yikes, that also needs a severe pruning of those episode counts that we have been discussing over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television Notable fictional characters can be retained. If Joyce Kim is mentioned regularly in the series to the point where people anticipate who will portray her when she appears, but personally does not appear until that one episode, then she's a notable character. But if she's on the level of the main character's parents, that might be relegated to guest or not be that notable. Shouldn't there be some Big Bang Theory companion guidebooks to help source things these days? Cite episodes are okay. It might be good to group those references separately as Works cited. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a book HERE. It has a section on supporting cast too, which might highlight who should stay and go. Unfortunately the online copy doesn't display that list. It might also just be an exhaustive list, which wouldn't really highlight notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sometimes the sky is blue: Disagree. The removal of content was completely warranted, as per the maintenance tags that have been in place since 2012. The characters do not required entries; their inclusions can be included in episode summaries on the respective page and the filmography tables/lists on the actors pages. Alex|The|Whovian 03:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's worth setting out a clear set of criteria for inclusion in a list like this, like a minimum number of appearances (in the FL-quality List of Millennium characters, I used five or more episodes as the minimum, and that was for a show with less than seventy episodes overall so that may bear adjusting for scale for longer-running shows). It's also worth noting that there is absolutely zero merit in an article which is entirely devoted to recounting plot information from a television series as some of the linked articles do; any which have no cited third-party information should be machete-ed with wild abandon. GRAPPLE ^X 10:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested

Comments requested here re: the ordering of The Backyardigans episodes and, as a lesser matter, MOS:CT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Reality TV show contestant bios

Is it appropriate for celebrity bio articles to contain detailed week-by-week analysis of a current reality show that they're appearing on? I cut some from a biography article recently, as it seemed clearly undue emphasis and failed the WP:10YEARS rule of thumb, but an IP added it back saying it was "often standard for contestants on reality shows". Is it? (Or is that maybe just for reality show contestants who have no other career? The bio in question was an actress with decades of other TV work.) --McGeddon (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a single event in the life of the BLP subject and doesn't need to be included in that much detail. The single paragraph that you added, and which I've now restored, is more than sufficient. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Also at Anita Rani, I see. It might be "a single event" (well no, not really, it's a series of related events), but in comparison to their careers to date, (especially as celebrity contestants begin to get progressively 'less famous') it's likely to be the most public exposure they have ever had, or maybe even will ever have. For many it's described as "a life-changing experience", apparently. So I am not wholly convinced. Perhaps a prose description of each week's progress might look less top heavy? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking for help with Colleen Bell

Hello, I'm looking for someone to help with updates to the Colleen Bell article and I wonder if anyone on this project might be willing to help get things started. In addition to being the current U.S. ambassador to Hungary, Bell is also a television producer known for working on The Bold and the Beautiful. The Producing career section of the Colleen Bell article says she is producer of the show, followed by a few sentences about the show itself. Since the Wikipedia entry is about Colleen Bell, not the show, I think it best if this section focuses more on her work with the program. (You can find the request here.) Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest: I am working on behalf of Ms. Bell through my firm, Beutler Ink, and SKD Knickerbocker, so I won't make any edits myself. Can someone look at my request and make the changes if they seem appropriate? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This has been  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Season articles

Should there always be season articles whenever there is more then one season? For example, Younger (TV series) has aired 12 episodes, with only one section of out-of-universe information on reception, and yet there is a separate List of Younger episodes and also Younger (season 1) and Younger (season 2) articles. I see there is WP:WHENSPLIT, and MOS:TV says season articles may be necessary for 80+ episodes. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry this may be obvious. But are those 12 across one season (first) that hasn't actually finishes airing yet? If so then none of the extra pages should exist. Mostly what I have seen is that the season articles are made when a second season is greenlit (to make infomation separation easier) and the LoE pages doesn't tend to be made until the second season begins airing.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The first season is finished and consists of 12 episodes, and a second season is announced. Then this means creating season articles is warranted then? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Well my example is for something like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D or flash, I would say that if there is enough detail on production and stuff then split, if not then it should all really be one article until a little later on when the main article is struggling to house everything.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 23:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

While this example (Younger) may be inappropriate for splitting (although I completed it, since it was half-accomplished), I do believe MOS:TV should be updated to reflect both television and Wikipedia today. That '80+ episode' designation was inserted in March 2009, when serialized stories, limited/anthology series, and shorter seasons weren't as widespread as today. Also, TV series rarely even make it to 80+ episodes- Breaking Bad was 62. Moreover, at that time season articles weren't as well-maintained as they are today- now we have users adding much more information on production and reception, and many season pages that have become featured lists. I believe we need to address these changes and rewrite that section about season pages and splitting LOEs. I lean towards something broader- not a rigid episode count but whether there is enough information to split. Shows like American Horror Story and Fargo are shows that have obvious needs for season pages once they were renewed, since their seasons are completely different, and the pages would have new information on casting, locations, and production. Incredibly popular shows like Empire too make sense to have season pages once renewed, since inevitably there will be a lot of well-maintained work, too detailed for a series page. Procedural broadcast shows with less information are the ones that I would be more reluctant to split. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it should be based on the amount of information you have rather than the length of the series. The case presented here is obviously problematic in that it is neither long-running nor in depth, but I think that the MOS should be altered anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

"Should there always be season articles whenever there is more then one season?" - No. Most definitely not. We don't even need "List of <Foo> episodes" pages in all cases. Like any Wikipedia article, we split when there is a good reason to split. For TV series, this is usually because the episode list has become too large for the main article although, most often, it's done "just 'cause". As soon as an article starts airing a second season, the LoE page is created, and that's not always necessary. Some articles just aren't big enough to justify a split. See, for example, Hotel Impossible, Kitchen Nightmares and Restaurant: Impossible. If the episode lists were removed from those articles they would become little more than stubs. Once there is justification for an LoE page, that list doesn't need to be split until there is good reason to split. Again, that is usually because of the amount of content, and splitting should always be based on WP:SPLIT. If the article isn't big enough to split, then it shouldn't be, unless the new article(s) would result in the LoE page becoming too large due to the inclusion of additional information (production information, ratings etc - but not the lead or infobox). Remember that WP:SPLIT refers to readable prose, not file size. They are two different things. When splitting articles, appropriate attribution is required, otherwise the resultant articles are technically copyright violations. The requirement for attribution is explained at WP:CWW and is most simply done using {{split from}} and {{split to}}. The "80+ episodes" in MOS:TV is only a rough guide, but it does correspond roughly to when articles should be split. For example, using a very loose interpretation of the definition of readable prose, the first 80 episodes at List of Castle episodes correspond to about 28kB of readable prose, which is well below the "Length alone does not justify division" upper limit. Articles with longer episode summaries could reach the "May need to be divided" lower limit of 50kB. The split of List of Younger episodes fails both in readable prose size and no attribution for the split has been provided. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the "80+ episodes" recommendation originally came from WP:SPLIT and article size, but at this point it's not at all representative of television today nor when articles actually get season pages in practice. Potential for content backed by reliable sources dictates season articles in my opinion, not readable prose size. In many if not most cases what you've described is actually a Catch-22- there won't be enough content to fill a season page until the page is created, and it won't be created until there's enough content to create one. I view season pages like individual episode articles- production/themes/reception sections (which aren't included on or split from List of Episodes pages at all) will as a matter of course be added, so splitting existing text isn't and shouldn't be the entire concern. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, "80+ episodes" is only a rough guide. It's not a hard and fast rule. There is no catch-22 either. Again as I said, if the article isn't big enough to split, then it shouldn't be, unless the new article(s) would result in the the inclusion of additional information. Simply splitting an LoE page to a season article that contains nothing more than a lead, infobox, episode list and maybe a list of starring characters, as happened with Younger, shouldn't be done. If you can't immediately add additional content, then the article shouldn't be split in the hope that some day somebody will do it. If you can add significant additional content then that might justify a split regardless of WP:SIZERULE. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The 80+ episodes is a guide when you're dealing with size only, because a LoE page that has 150 episode summaries is insanely largely to read. Articles can be created earlier is the GNG is met. The catch that we run into is that almost no show can justify splitting after a season or two (definitely not 1 season). The reason being is that most of the "production" information for the first season is the production information found on the main page. Thus, you're just create a duplicate page and justifying it by saying it meets the GNG (when in fact, the main page met the GNG, not the season). Having a couple of reviews, which is what I often see, does not separate it out. Again, when a show is just 1 or 2 years old, those reviews are likely what's on the main page and we don't need separate pages for that information. When a show gets into multiple seasons and there is enough independent coverage of the independent seasons, then you can talk about splitting and reformatting the main page (i.e., summarizing more and leaving details to season pages, ala Smallville) so that there isn't as much or any duplication. Would you feel better if we said "Additionally, season pages may be created after X number of seasons have taken place, and there is independent coverage of the independent seasons that allows them to meet the GNG"? Obviously the wording would change, I'm merely giving you an idea of a caveat that could be placed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For many series, like the reality series AussieLegend cited above, of course, there are not enough changes between seasons to warrant season pages. But I would argue that a show like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad or even a freshman show like Empire have enough content, popularity, and editor interest to create season pages when their second season begins airing. While Younger may not be ready for season pages, True Detective, by its anthology nature, is. The first and second seasons of The Wire and The Leftovers differ tremendously in tone and characters, and since that information is rarely if ever documented on a List of Episodes page, I don't view those season pages as a split – and I imagine season articles are more common and better maintained now than they were in 2009. So regarding changes made to the MOS:TV section, firstly I believe it's time to strike the "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes" phrase and begin the section with "It may be necessary to break...". Secondly yes, Bignole, I like your suggestions. Instead of 'X number', does 'two or more' make sense? The emphasis is definitely on meeting the GNG, however, not the number of seasons. And is it worth mentioning anthology series / shows that have completely different casts between seasons? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying strike the episode count, again I am telling you that that is meant to be about size of a page. If a show doesn't have a lot of independent content and it's approaching 5, 6, 7 seasons, then you may need to turn the LoE page into season pages because that's a lot for a page to summarize for plots. I'm saying we can add another guide of number of seasons, if those seasons meet the GNG. Anthology series do not necessarily mean that there is a significant amount of independent coverage. That depends on the show itself. Casting information is not significant coverage, so the fact that they replace the cast every year is trivial in the grande scheme of the GNG (notice I said the GNG and not readers or fans of the show). This is also not about being "better maintained". We didn't set are guideline based on whether people can maintain articles. Given that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a current events encyclopedia (e.g., another reason why episode pages shouldn't be created the day after they air), there isn't a need to "maintain" them for "current" seasons. I'm not suggesting that current seasons of shows don't deserve a page, but that maintenance is irrelevant. As for "more common", again, many shows have season pages that probably don't need to exist but do so because there are less editors around those pages actually applying the guidelines of the GNG (let alone WP:MOSTV).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe there are two simultaneous uses for season pages, and MOS:TV should reflect that. Yes, if a show's LOE has excessive size, it should be split, using a season page as an organizational tool. That is where the 80+ episode sentence stems from, sure, but I don't think it's a guide worth preserving anymore since fewer series reach that number (and it's arbitrary to begin with- why not leave it to editor's discretion?). But more importantly season pages also serve as means for covering a series in more detail, providing a place to describe casting/production/reception/awards in detail which is worth acknowledging since that use certainly in the spirit of an encyclopedia, like individual episode articles. As well as, yes, more common- why shouldn't our guidelines reflect how users write articles in practice? As for the word "maintain"- I wasn't referring to current seasons – something you brought up – merely the writing and paying attention of season articles. And naturally season pages that don't meet the GNG shouldn't exist... no one has argued that they should! All I'm suggesting, as Dark Cocoa Frosting alluded to at the beginning of this section, is a need to recognize in the MOS how season articles early in a television series' life can/should be written. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

If we left "size" to editor discretion then pages would be split far earlier than they needed to for size reasons. It's happens quite frequently because someone "thinks" that it's too large when it fact it isn't large at all. That's why WP:SIZE actually has guidelines on when to split. The difficult nature is that it's based on readable prose, which is hard to determine without copying and pasting outside of the HTML code when dealing with tables. That's how the 80+ episodes was come up with, because that's roughly to the size that WP:SIZE dictates for splitting.

Yes, season articles are meant for more details. My point is that early is a show's life, those details are already on the main page and maybe another ancillary page. To create a season article after one or two seasons makes little sense when almost every ounce of detail for those seasons is likely on the main page. Depending on the show, there may not be a significant number of reviews for it (yes, some shows get tons of coverage...many do not). With regard to when in a show's life that a season page can or should be created, you have the GNG and you have a basic understanding that meeting the GNG by duplicating another page is not actually an appropriate reason to split. This is a reason why, if you're going to argue for details, you need a seasonal minimum established. Your main page needs to be large enough that trimming down the details to more summary level (so that the details can exist on a season page) makes sense. That doesn't make sense for any show after 1 season and rarely would I say that it make sense for a show after two seasons. Not unless that show has gotten a crazy amount of coverage and the main page is swamped with information overload.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing more than disagreeing. Honestly just rephrasing your last sentence as a new addition is what I believe is a resolution here. Something like "In circumstances when a series has achieved significant coverage earlier in its run and its main article is no longer comprehensive, a season page may be created." That or just removing "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes," which in my view institutes the same needed additional editor discretion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I think adding the statement is better than removing the other. There are a lot of series that don't have that coverage, but people think that "size" is enough reason. Without a clear indicate of what "size" is appropriate, people split pages after 2 seasons to just house plot summaries on 2 pages instead of 1.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

linking the season number in the episode infobox

In August, Cebr1979 (talk · contribs) began linking the season number in the episode infobox to the apropos article or section discussing that season. So far as I know, he only did this with Star Trek episodes. At the time, I was unfamiliar with this practice taking place anywhere, so I brought it up for discussion at the Star Trek WikiProject and at the infobox talk page itself. There was little-to-no discussion on the matter, with only Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs) commenting that he felt such linking shouldn't be done. Cebr1979 took my inquiry as a vote against him or her linking, and so with two editors against such practice, declined to pursue it further.

Today, Cebr1979 has commented ([6] [7]) that he or she intends to restart the practice of linking the season in the infobox. Despite Cebr1979's assumption, I don't have an opinion on this, but would like to get the community's wider input on the matter since it's something not done commonly (or at all) previously. Since I didn't have much luck in garnering input at the Star Trek WikiProject or the template talk page before, I'm bringing it up here hoping for the TV WikiProject's input on the matter. Thanks in advance! — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

fourthords: I'm a he and there's no point in starting a conversation about something you're not against. If you don't have an opinion on something, you shouldn't be talking about it. Sensible people do not go around saying, "I have no opinion on this but, would love to talk about it." Starting a conversation not worth talking about is nonsense and there shouldn't be any place for nonsense at an encyclopedia. The fact that I'm doing it, and you want to discuss it, proves you are against it. If you liked it, you would have thanked me for it and, if you really didn't have an opinion, you wouldn't have taken the time to notice. You are obviously against it but, there's no reason whatsoever not to do it. So, either come up with a valid reason not to do it (which you won't be able to do because there isn't one) or, go back to not caring about something you (supposedly) don't have an opinion on. What you're actually doing right now is hoping someone else will come up with a valid reason to tell me to stop because you want me to stop but, can't think of a valid reason on your own. Nobody else is going to think of a valid reason for you because no valid reason exists. So, why don't you start really not having an opinion about something you claim you don't have an opinion on and drop what is now the third conversation you've started about something you don't have an opinion on and get back to doing something worthwhile.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please remain civil during discussions. There is a very large point in starting a conversation about something you're not necessarily against, and that's to get the viewpoint neutrally of other editors involved in similar projects. Alex|The|Whovian 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, this is the whole source for three conversations. Like, it's so minor I can't even believe it was ever even noticed... much less discussed!Cebr1979 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"The Adversary"
Episode no.	Season 3

I don't see the point of linking at all, especially because of the way that it appears in the infobox. In the example to the right, only the "3" is linked, so it's hard to see that there is a link at all. The average reader would expect a link to work if he or she clicked anywhere in "Season 3" but that doesn't happen. It seems a pointless exercise to link as it stands now especially in the case of "The Adversary (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" as Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (season 3) redirects to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes#Season 3 (1994–95), meaning there is absolutely nothing to be gained with this link. Admittedly though, I'm more concerned that these articles exist in their present form. Many are unreferenced and fail WP:PLOT. Instead of linking unnecessarily, perhaps Cebr1979 could instead concentrate on getting these articles to a level where they won't fail at AfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes

Hey all, could use some other eyes at Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes. There's a contingent of show fans who are insistent that an episode, "Minimus is Missing", which is coded by Disney as 223 is a S3 episode. I keep having the same circular discussion, so if anyone has anything different to add (since I very well could be being a little myopic about this), I welcome the input. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Teletoon sister names?

Hey all, anyone have any expertise in this? these edits introduced a few extra sister channels for Teletoon. Accurate? Or is someone playing around? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks valid to me. All owned by Corus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not accurate to me, while owned by Corus, Teletoons and Cartoon Network Canada (with the Retros shut down or re-purposed) are owned and programmed separately from the other Corus Kids division by the Teletoons Canada unit. Sister channels should be those in the same cable network or managed in the same business unit. Thus the French Teletoons can be listed being in the same cable network (Teletoons) while not being in the same business unit (in Corus Media vis via managing, not Teletoons Canada - which may still be held by this corporation). ABC Spark [http://kidscreen.com/2013/07/16/changes-to-corus-leadership-including-corus-kids/#ixzz3j0V3PkM2 is run by Corus Women and Family division/vertical, which the other channels from that unit are list by "these edit". Nor are any of the Telelatino Network channels, even the kids ones, were added. Besides, all Corus owned are list in the navbox, so a full list of Corus channels is desirable. Spshu (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about channel listings

I recently had to re-delete an article that was essentially a list of every horror film broadcast on WakuWaku Japan. It'd been deleted via AfD since it was essentially a WP:TVGUIDE type of setup. None of the films were created by the channel, nor was the channel the first place to show these films, so it was basically a case of a film eventually showing on a channel.

Now a look at the article page showed an extremely long list of various shows that have played on the channel. My question is basically this: do we really need to list every show that has ever broadcast on the channel itself? My basic reaction is that we should really only list shows that the channel either created or was the first to premiere, meaning that the programming was created with the specific intent to show it on WakuWaku Japan first and rebroadcast it on other channels later. You can see the original version here. I've removed this as the content wasn't original to the channel or acquired by the channel, just re-broadcast content. I think that listing the shows can be problematic, given that some shows are only comprised of a limited amount of episodes, like Amachan or Tokyo Love Story. Basically, this runs the risk of the article being forever incomplete (if we include everything that was ever shown) or out of date, if they frequently switch up programming. I think that it'd be far easier to just limit the listing to original programming and then have a brief synopsis of other things they show, like what I've written.

I'm mildly curious to know if the channel is even notable or not, to be honest. A search brings up some sourcing like this, but there's not a terribly large amount of it out there. That's not my main reason for posting here, but since I'm here it is something that could be worth mentioning. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• One thing in its favor is that it does appear to broadcast in several countries, which would likely be a good sign of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with not all shows should be listed. Those that actually reported by reliable sources or press releases is what I place into articles which is usually the original program. With classic channels/networks filling the bulk of additional subchannels, it would seem odd only to mention original programming as it doesn't have any. Spshu (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Article setup at the Daenerys Targaryen article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Article setup. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Backyardigans ordering

Hi all, thanks to those who commented on the Sofia the First issue above. There's a similar situation at Talk:List of the Backyardigans episodes, where some editors appear to be contemplating the use of Nickelodeon URLs, as well as the assertion of someone who claims to be a show director as evidence of the show's production order. Comments solicited please! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:cite episode is broken

If you've been using cite episode, or have looked at a references section, you might notice that many references using {{cite episode}} are displaying an error message that reads "Check |episodelink= value (help)", that wasn't there yesterday. This is most likely because of recent changes to Module talk:Citation/CS1, which is the backbone of {{cite episode}}. There is most likely no error in the reference. The message is appearing because "#" is used in the citation, in the form #ep2, List of Foo episodes #ep2 or something similar. This is how {{cite episode}} is supposed to work, but the changes made to the template now call this an error, when it isn't. I've raised this at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and submitted a request to fix the module, but there has been no action yet. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 25, 2015

A summary of a Featured Article tagged by this wikiproject will appear on the Main Page soon. You can use the page history to get a diff comparing it to the lead section of the article; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 04:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

London Spy

London Spy could use some eyeballs. There's a bit of a personality conflict between two editors and it's devolved into a lot of sniping that might be helped by some good-ol community meddling. Currently there is a dispute about how long plot summaries should be. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And in addition to the plot summaries there are the script titles.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I've meddled, but I don't think that will be enough. One editor seems unwilling to comprimise. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Makin' It (TV series)

I am nominating two images for discussion because I could not choose which one to keep. I invite you to FFD. --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Noggin

Hello! It seems that former TV channels like Noggin (Playhouse Disney, Toon Disney, and several other sister networks that have been renamed) have their own pages, so I think that Noggin is notable enough for its own page, especially since it is linked from many of pages. The channel, originally being a co-production between Sesame Workshop and Nickelodeon directed at pre-teens, was so different than what the current Nick Jr. network is that I think it was more than a simple renaming. I would have done the page myself but I feel that having the community's input first will help. Let me know what you think, thank you! Squiddaddy (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You are assuming notability is granted to a class of channels, which is not the case. Linking from many pages is not a feature of notability isn't either. It is a function of having general nation wide reliable sources "..those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, ..." Nor is notability a function of you polling the TV wikiproject either. Spshu (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not asking whether it was notable or not, but thank you for your input. I was asking whether or not the channel should have its own page separate from the Nick Jr. article. Notability is not a question here, as the Noggin channel itself and the related mobile app meet the WP:N guidelines. Squiddaddy (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You indicated notability is based on other former TV channels that have been renamed. "It seems that former TV channels like Noggin (Playhouse Disney, Toon Disney, and several other sister networks that have been renamed) have their own pages, so I think that Noggin is notable enough for its own page, especially since it is linked from many of pages." And you were asking whether or not it should have its own page, which notability is the first test.

Additional, renaming is not the only thing happening with Playhouse Disney and Toon Disney. With Toon Disney and part of the Jetix channels/blocks (with some becoming Disney Channels) became Disney XD. Jetix Play became either Playhouse Disney, Disney XD or shut down. Disney Jr. replaced (in the USA, at least attempted to) SoapNet channel and elsewhere Playhouse Disney channels & blocks. Some claim Disney Cinemagic replaced Toon Disney in some European countries, but no source has been found to support that. So the Noggin & Nick Jr. situation is much more linear than your examples. So length is a reason to WP:SPLIT, and I don't see length of the Noggin/Nick Jr. article to be too long. So, I don't see the need for a split. Spshu (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the improper wording of my question, I did not think that it came across as referencing notability. However, the major reason behind why I asked whether or not it should have its own article was because of the information that is not on the Nick Jr. page that could be added to an article of its own. I feel that the fact that Noggin was originally a Sesame Workshop/Viacom production could be expanded upon in the article, and a page of similar length to Playhouse Disney's and Toon Disney's could easily be written (if you analyze the contents of those two articles, you will realize that there is only history, a programming list and a list of international versions; I could add much more than just those topics to a Noggin article simply using the sources I've collected). Last time I checked, the Noggin block from the UK is not even mentioned on the Nick Jr. article, and it would be helpful for readers to note it.

Equally important is the fact that renaming was far from the only change between Noggin and Nick Jr. Noggin was a CTW/Viacom co-production like I've mentioned earlier, and it was a commercial-free network separate from the Nick Jr. block on Nickelodeon for the most part; there were three "mascots" that made up for the lack of commercials. The Nick Jr. network is much different, with commercials and content purely from Viacom. Squiddaddy (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed for a bot to rename some Mexican TV station callsigns

Please see this bot approval request: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bot24. To summarize, the operator wishes to modify some instances of Mexican TV station callsigns in articles, from (e.g.) XHFEC-TV to XHFEC-TDT, as part of a digital transition. As this is out of my area of expertise, I am asking for clarification that this is correct and desired. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 06:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Chloe Lukasiak

Editors here might like to keep an eye on this article, where an IP editor continues to use IMDb as a source, despite being told on their talk page that it is not, generally speaking, considered to be a WP:reliable source. The editor is edit-warring to keep the edits in, and is apparently a SPA, as they have not edited any other articles. I'm backing away. BMK (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Charlie Brown Christmas.jpg

This image is one of FFDs. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

TVmaze as a source

Can I get some opinion on if TVmaze is a reliable source regarding episode titles, air dates, cast, etc.? I see it popping up as reference, there is no TVmaze wikipedia article, and I didn't understand where their information comes from, is it user-generated, like IMDb? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a wiki equivalent - see http://www.tvmaze.com/site/copyright - "TVmaze is a collaborative site, which can be edited by any registered user.". Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The issue of criticism content at the The Walking Dead (TV series) article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:The Walking Dead (TV series)#Early criticism content. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The issue concerns including criticism in a section that is currently full of positive reviews, and especially the issue of including criticism of season 2 and noting how the show progressed from there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

COI edits on Top Model series

I just noticed that articles from Category:Top Model series have been extensively edited by Michh1 (talk · contribs · count) and Moo1991 (talk · contribs · count). And they have edited articles related to this series only. I have dropped a note on their talk pages in relation to this, to declare their COI in these cases. I personally have no interest in the series and would not be able to pursue this if its going to get bitter ahead. Hence requesting other regular editors to look into this matter. @TheRedPenOfDoom:, if you are interested and willing, do keep an eye on this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:ABC Persons of the Week

Category:ABC Persons of the Week, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Millennium (miniseries)

So a while back, i never knew about this Millennium TV-mini series. And originally, i thought it was a completely different production then the original Swedish films. However, now that i'm digging a little deeper, i realize that the "miniseries" is a compilation of the three films with extended scenes. In the US, its not even considered a separate entity. That means that most of its success is due to the original films. The miniseries was released on DVD/Blu-ray as the "Dragon Tattoo Trilogy".

I'm still working on the article just in case i find out more that makes this piece of work. But, i'm having a difficult time find out about the subject as a "miniseries" and more of a compilation. it might be more beneficial to repurpose the article into a Millenium (film series) instead. This is a very big change but it ultimately might end up making a better article. Lucia Black (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

If it is repurposed as a "film series" article (there isn't one already after all), I don't see too much of a problem as long as the content keeps it clear that it was shown as a TV miniseries. I'm trying to think of comparable examples to see how we handle them - Das Boot, Out 1 and Fanny and Alexander spring to mind, but each of those has only been shown as a miniseries or a single film, not a series of films. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I also found more of a tv series being reconfigured as a film. Not the other way around. But I'm confident I can make it work. All the information will remain. it'll just be organized a little differently. I believe this will be better anyways because the article can cover the Millennium/Dragon Tattoo Trilogy (non-extended edition release). Lucia Black (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for TV season articles

Hello, I wonder what are criteria for TV season series? There are seasonal articles for some programs, for example The Voice UK (series 1), while others, such as The Face (TV series), doesn't. --Horus (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

See also the related above discussion.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry I duplicated the thread. --Horus (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Disney-Kellogg Alliance?

This discussion was originally brought up here by Spshu, but I decided to refer it to WikiProject Television because I felt that we need to hash it out in a larger forum.

Personally, despite reliable sources being provided, I do not think we should refer to The Disney Afternoon as the Disney-Kellogg Alliance in the article because I don't think the name is notable enough to supplant the more well-known name in the article. I want to see what all of you at WikiProject Television have to say about this whole matter. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be discussed there. Notability is only a test for having an article. Spshu (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone's gonna discuss it there. I need more than just your input, which is all I'm getting out of this discussion so far. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 17:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several quotes from reliable sources with links indicating The Disney Afternoon was renamed Disney-Kellogg Alliance listed at Talk:The Disney Afternoon#Disney-Kellogg Alliance like Variety: "The Disney-Kellogg Alliance, formerly known as “The Disney Afternoon,” would cease to exist in syndication,..." Please check them out to inform yourself if you want to comment. Spshu (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This thread is long past its usefulness. The issue was settled outside of WikiProject Television, and it seems like this discussion is going nowhere. Can we close it now? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 07:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no actual requirement to formally close discussions and, until today, nobody had commented here in 3 weeks, so the discussion had more or less closed itself. If you hadn't posted, the discussion would have been automatically archived in a few days. Now it's here for another 25 days, assuming nobody posts again. Sometimes it's best to let things just fade away. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Awards from what looks like some random blogger

Hi, everyone. Going through my watchlist, I noticed someone recently added an award nomination from what looks some random blogger, cartermatt.com. I removed it, but a linksearch indicates that there are quite a few more of these citations. Before I unilaterally remove all of them, I figured I'd ask how the WikiProject feels about this – are these awards something we should be reporting? I located a draft article about the site, and that doesn't really instill me with any more confidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Offhand I don't think that the site would be considered a RS. A look at their Twitter account shows less than 9,000 followers. Follower counts don't automatically mean something is or isn't a RS, but a low amount of followers can be fairly telling. In comparison, Twitch Film has over 37,000 followers and they're still considered to be relatively unknown as far as mainstream awareness goes. Now I do see it listed as a source in this book published through Lexington Books. I do see that there's a Matt Carter that has worked as a reporter for various topics, many political, but this doesn't seem to be the same person. I'll od some more searching, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I know that the criteria for the TV project doesn't always line up with those of the film project - nor should they. However, this case reminds me of the discussion earlier this year about the removal of several local/regional film awards from various articles. One question should be "Do these CM.com awards receive coverage in secondary sources?" If not then they shouldn't be in WikiP articles. As I look at these they are too WP:SELFPROMOTIONAL for my liking. But that is just me if others think they merit a place in the articles then that is fine. MarnetteD|Talk 05:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• They're listed in this book as a source. It's Cambridge Scholars Publishing, which initially sounds good but a quick look brings up things like this and this where people dismiss it as little better than vanity publishing, meaning that this wouldn't be seen as a reliable source so being listed in this book as a RS would mean nothing to Wikipedia. As far as news goes, I can't see where they're repeatedly referred to as a source by other outlets, nor do I see where they're listed anywhere else. They do seem to be popular and for a site that launched in 2012 they seem to have a nice following. It's possible that in the next few years they could be seen as a RS, but right now I would say that no, they're not a RS. This means that any award given by this site would be non-notable and not worth listing on Wikipedia. I'd say that we should probably remove or replace the links in the various articles, since it's not a RS. However I doubt that the information in the articles is incorrect per se, so it doesn't need to be as big of a rush as it would be if people were linking to my personal blog site or something like that. The awards though, those definitely need to go. From what I can see, there's zero coverage of the awards outside of the site itself and I can't really find anything for the awards from years prior to 2014, so this seems to be something that they just recently launched. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't post a direct link because Examiner dot com is on the spam blacklist, but there are some funny scathing comments directed at this guy at examiner dot com/article/exclusive-interview-tila-tequila-dishes-on-new-reality-show-pregnancy-music-and-more Also, for whatever it's worth: "Matt Carter is a poet, journalist, and screenwriter from Dallas, TX. A former reality and game show contestant, he published his first book, 'Storms of Change,' in May 2008." From here we get: "Matt Carter is best known to millions of Americans as "The Poet" from the hit television show "Beauty and the Geek," but he has also appeared on the television program "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" in addition to hosting "Mustang Movies with Matt and Christy" for Southern Methodist University. He also reports frequently on sports for Most Valuable Network. Carter currently lives in Dallas, where he enjoys writing, video gaming, and pining away at what to do next." I don't have a plan for what we're supposed to do with all this information, but there ya go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Carter a notable television critic? That he's been a former reality television show contestant is nice, but are his writings regularly published in news entertainment magazines (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.) or relegated to self-published places like Yahoo Contributor Network, Examiner, Facebook, Livejournal, Wordpress, or forum posts where anyone can write about anything? If he's a legit critic, then is the award that he gives meaningful? Any writer can write up their "best television show of 2015" or "my top 10 favorite shows of 2015" list or write-in their own categories of superlatives. A website can also gather nominations and have their subscribers and viewers vote on the winners, publishing those results. If it's a viewer vote, that doesn't count for anything either. Some of those year-end results might be listed in critical reception or even Metacritic among the hundreds of others, but is hardly a notable award for an Awards and Nominations list. Then on the recipient side, does the recipient even get anything or consider it important? Do they come on the show and thank the awards site? Do they add it to their resume as their own accomplishments? (e.g. I was named the Best Actress in Houston Metro!) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Tokyogirl79 is suggesting the best test. Is this award itself something that would be notable enough to be covered in third party reliable sources independent of the awarder and awardee - basically does the award itself meet our standards for WP:GNG? I don't think we necessarily need an article for the award but if there were one, that would show that the award is notable enough to matter. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's generally how I feel, though I agree with everyone who's posted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject NCIS

I have suggested that WP:WikiProject NCIS be converted into a taskforce of this project, WPTV, similar to how other inactive TV wikiprojects have been converted to WPTV taskforces over the years. For the proposal discussion, see WT:WikiProject NCIS -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Early online release

With increasing importance of the internet it has recently become common that TV show episodes have been made publicly and legally available online by the networks themselves not only after they aired on TV but also before. Sometimes for whole seasons at a time, e.g., Aquarius, Satisfaction, sometimes just for some episodes, e.g., Public Morals, Telenovela, Superstore, and sometimes including the pilot, e.g., Moonbeam City, The Expanse. Note that my question is not about teasers, trailers, leaked material, limited audiences / conventions, or press only access, but full episodes that are identical with the ones that air on traditional TV at a later time and available to everyone who also has access to the episodes on TV later.

I find no explicit mention how to deal with this in the MOS. I see that (even the above listed) articles deal with these facts differently. I find an implicit distinction in the wording of "released" (online) vs. "aired" (on TV), but I find that these distinctions are not made consistently or at least not in a way that can reflect the mixed releases (online and over the air) as described above. Points of conflict are

• the "No. of episodes" in the infobox: the description talks about "aired", to distinguish from "ordered" or "produced" – maybe also from "released online", or has this just not been reflected yet?
• the "Original release" date in the infobox, in the case where the pilot is available online before it is on TV. In rare cases this could even influence the article title if the pilot is released online in 2015 and on the air in 2016.
• The dates in the Episode table, which can be switched between "air date" and "release date" but only as a whole, to reflect streaming-only services like Netflix but not the new mixed approaches by the "classical" networks that expand into the streaming business.

I see three possible consistent approaches in general:

• The traditionalist approach, where one would ignore all online dates for shows on a network where they later air on TV on a regular traditional weekly schedule.
• The mixed approach, where one lists both dates at least for cases where the online is in advance (as it is common and never reported when episodes are released online after they air on TV). The question still remains if this is in prose or in the Infobox and Episode Table fields.
• The first is first approach, where whatever comes first counts. After all, WP does not list online release dates after the TV air date. So one could say why would it list TV air dates after the online release dates, those are repeats, and WP does not list repeat dates. With one exception: viewer numbers and ratings are usually not available for streaming, another reason not to ignore the fact when online is first, as it potentially diminishes TV viewer figures of those episodes that stream first.

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Obviously we do need to address this in the MOS. I'm not sure that there is an easy response, because it's not consistent and as you pointed out sometimes you get one episode and times you get the whole season (which is more like a Netflix show and completely different anyway). I would say that it should be approached from a consistency standpoint within the article itself. If a series airs all of its episodes early online, then that is the date of release. If a series had a single episode, or a single season, out of several that had this happen, then I'm less inclined to want to list it that way. Take the seventh season of Smallville. That season aired all of its episodes a day early in Canada, for whatever reason. Never done before that, and never done after for the remaining seasons. Instead of creating an inconsistency within the list of tables by having one table include dates from another country, what we did was used the dates from the country of origin and then put in a note indicating that the season itself aired a day early in Canada that year. It kept the consistency while also acknowledging the change in airings.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Much shorter (also skipping the above motivation): For mixed (i.e., on-demand and broadcast) releases, while it does not appear to be notable if an episode or season is made publicly available online after it airs on TV,

• is it notable if episodes are made publicly (i.e., to the same audience) available online before they air on TV, and
• does this depend on if it is all / only one / the premiere / the finale / some episode(s)?

If yes:

• Is the later TV broadcast still notable?
• Should this be reflected in the infobox and episode table and how?

–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe: It's as notable as the broadcast of the episode itself. Which is to say that the release itself isn't notable unless there was something noteworthy about it. It's just a means of release. If we said that a release itself was "notable" then we get into this, "that makes the episode notable", which isn't true at all. Is it worth noting? Yes, it's worth noting.

Yes, the later TV broadcast is still just as important. It would be even more important if they never broadcasted it on TV only released the episode online (ala the Hannibal episode that never aired on TV in the first season).

In the infobox..No. In the episode table...No. Unless the entire series is always broadcasted earlier online than on TV. If it's a special event, then a note should be created to alert the reader that it's a special event and leave consistency for the rest of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations, but I do not share the views for mixed releases.

Why does WP list dates? Certainly WP:NOTVGUIDE. But because it was found noteworthy to mention when an episode was first publicly available. Nowadays, for all practical purposes from the viewpoint of a TV watcher, it makes no difference whether this is on demand or by broadcast: the contents is the same. (The online content can even be cast onto the same TV screen that shows the broadcast, too.) If some episodes are available online first, this certainly deserves more than just a footnote.

Consistency: For tables or boxes, while one can find it consistent to choose a delivery channel and have only that type of dates, and inconsistent to mix dates between online and broadcast, one can as well find it consistent to have first-publication dates, and inconsistent to mix some real first-broadcast dates with other broadcast dates that for practical purposes are really repeats of earlier published contents. Both types of consistencies will not be possible in a mixed release.

The mixed release schedules are a new development not explicitly covered by the MOS and applying old broadcast-only or streaming-only guidelines does not do them justice. And my WP:CRYSTALBALL tells me that the examples I listed above are just the beginning with many more yet to follow. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Of the options you listed, I think I align with the mixed approach, as I do believe that it is notable enough to mention/list when episodes premiere online earlier than on television. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between not mentioning something at all, and making a special mention of it outside of an episode table when it's an outlier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

For series normally broadcast on television, I would stick with broadcast dates and ignore on-demand streaming on the episode listings unless it was an exclusive. The broadcast section can certainly talk about how some episodes were made available for streaming in advance as pilot and sample episodes or to streaming subscribers. Some series have a "sneak preview" broadcast, perhaps even on a different channel, to generate interest in the series. Whether a bonus episode is given an "airdate" depends on how the episode was presented, but it can have (DVD extra) or (web) attached to such an airdate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: I asked mainly about full episodes of identical contents. I am not sure what "sneak preview broadcasts" are—If that means broadcasts out of the assigned weekly schedule, why does it matter? TV networks would certainly like to have their content "premiere" a dozen times over and invent colorful WP:PEACOCK words for it just not having to call the later ones repeats, but fact is, premiere literally means first, and there is only one first release of the content. (Maybe one first release per delivery mechanism, e.g., first on-demand, first broadcast, first discs.) Or if the MOS:TV/Infobox/Episode Table guidelines mean not to give "original" broadcast dates but the original broadcast date in the "regular" time segment, they should say so.

@Bignole: If in mixed releases the television content delivery mechanism (broadcast in contrast to on demand) is actually so essential, the Infobox has to be adjusted, because it always displays as "Original release". But that original release apparently would not include an on-demand release for shows that also broadcast some/all episodes.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As a specific example, there's Star vs. the Forces of Evil which aired the first episode in its entirety on Disney Channel on January 18, 2015, and then had its "premiere" on Disney XD on March 30, 2015. The show was intended to run on Disney XD regardless, but the Disney Channel premiere was significant enough to generate interest for the show to be renewed for a second season. The table lists both. If the show had its premiere and "sneak preview" on the same channel, I agree there would be no point to list the second date as it would be a rerun. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Wabbit (TV series)

Anyone have thoughts about how to treat the title in the lead at Wabbit (TV series)? It looks to me like someone took the logo a little too literally, and instead of considering the series' title to be "Wabbit.", they've inflated it to "Wabbit. - A Looney Tunes Prod." Reminds me of a weird debate AussieLegend had with someone who interpreted "Songs from and inspired by the television series" as part of a TV soundtrack album's title. Thoughts? Also, there's a discussion about whether or not the alternate European title of "Bugs." is widespread enough to be included in the lead. My concern is that there might be multiple country-specific titles, and we shouldn't encourage the addition of all of these. Since I might be being stubborn here, some other input would be appreciated. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I would treat it as a WP:SUBTITLE, so it doesn't belong in the common name / article title. Cartoon Network doesn't show it when listing individual episodes of the show. [8] As for European titles, that should not be in the lead, but can be relegated to the International broadcast section if it spans a large number of countries as "Bugs.". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Kalyeserye episodes

Hey all, I'm planning to nominate List of Kalyeserye episodes for deletion, but before I do, I thought I'd float it past you all in case there was something I was missing, or if anyone had any thoughts for how it could be saved. As short as possible: Kalyeserye is a daily, live, semi-serialized, improvisational comedy segment that airs during Eat Bulaga!, a daily, live, variety show in the Philippines. Here's what it looks like. While it's very popular and presumably notable, my concern is that since we're talking about a live segment within a live show, a list of episodes seems like an academically fruitless endeavor, since no real "story" is being told, and more importantly, the article will never meet WP:V. How does one verify any of the "episodes"? Is anyone ever going to release DVDs of this live, improvised segment? It would be like trying to catalog the daily banter between Hoda Kotb and Kathie Lee Gifford on The Today Show. (Which I said verbatim in the AfD for this related article). If you read some of the episode summaries, I think you'll see what I mean. There's no real story happening, it's mostly banter with some story-like beats interspersed. Also, I appear to be the only one participating in discussion at Talk:List of Kalyeserye episodes. Community input would be greatly appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

If it appears as a separate production from the show as with cartoons The Simpsons shorts or The Ambiguously Gay Duo then it can be separated out. But if it's just a usual segment like Late Show Top Ten List or Weekend Update then it doesn't need to be documented down to each individual episode. The segment articles themselves can cover the details and highlight any significant episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Netflix "Original" programming in Navbox

Additional opinions welcome at Template talk:Netflix#River. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

ABC Family/Freeform

I think the articles on ABC Family and Freeform (TV network) need some attention. It looks like a cut-and-paste move was done.

Also, Category:ABC Family shows was moved to Category:Freeform shows which I don't understand either. Are even old shows that have been produced by ABC Family now automatically Freeform shows? Shouldn't there be a new category for Freeform shows, leaving the ABC Family as it is? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

And this applies to Category:ABC Family and Category:Freeform, too. There is also Category:ABC Family original films.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have requested speedy deletion to delete the cut and paste move article, Freeform (TV network), which is an incorrect name per WP:NC-BC, and for Freeform (TV channel), its correct location/article name. (You are welcome, Frosting.)

Not sure about the category issue. In some regards with Freeform being a new name for ABC Family that moving that category makes some sense. On the other hand, they may be better know under the ABC Family name. Perhaps based on the number of shows should determine if the old category name should continue, nested with in a new Freeform equivalent category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spshu (talk • contribs)

For the categories, there is still a Category:Fox Family shows which has not been moved into ABC Family, either. Same for The WB/The CW.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Phil episode list or season articles

Would there be any opposition to organizing a list? The show seems notable enough to arrange one. Usually each episode has a page on the site which could be used as a reference to support its title and air date. Due to there being over a thousand episode it would not seem appropriate to allow summaries on a master list and to save that for if season pages were made.

Are any notability criteria needed to allow for a Dr. Phil (season 1) to Dr. Phil (season 14) to be made? I'm personally only interested in doing a master list but I imagine some people might want to add summaries so if they begin to do so it would be nice to have a season page to divert them to. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Numerical season category proposal

Under Category:Television seasons we have Category:Television seasons by year on the basis of when they happened.

We also have Category:Television seasons by programming which collects the seasons of multiple series.

I would like to know if we could also collect seasons on the basis of their counting. As in a category for all articles about a first season, another for all second seasons, and so forth.

For example Lost (season 1) and WordGirl (season 1) and Total Divas (season 1)

The only thing I am not sure about is the formatting of the naming.

Before creating I figured I would throw out some ideas to see if anyone had better ones. It would be a big project but it wouldn't have to be done all at once. There are a lot of pages like these and this would be a good way to track them. Naturally the population of each category would shrink as we went forward.

Category:List of television seasons by number perhaps?

As for how to populate it...

1. category:1st television seasons
2. category:2nd television seasons

and so forth.

Once we got to season 10+ the category would display out of order, a problem the 'by year' has not had to deal with since it ranges from 1950 to 2016, so it would only approach a problem on the year 9999.

One prevention might be to make it double digit from the start:

1. category:01st television seasons

but that might not be easy for people to remember... I don't know any shows approaching 100 seasons so it seems to fix the problem at least.

It occured to me we could spell it out rather than use the numerical characters:

1. category:first television seasons
2. category:second television seasons
3. category:third television seasons
4. category:fourth television seasons

we can see that breaks down even sooner in terms of automated parent category order though. I guess we could simply comment |01 and |02 and so forth when adding them to do that though. It seems like using number characters would take up less space though. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What purpose would this serve? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Organization, like any category. It would let us easily know which shows have become notable enough to not just have a -list of episodes- page but also a season-based page, and of those, how many season articles there are for higher-numbered seasons. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no different levels of notability. If a series has a page then it's notable. Having a season page doesn't make it any more notable. Grouping The Simpsons (season 9) (1997/98) with NCIS (season 9) (2011/12) and The Big Bang Theory (season 9) (2015/16) in Category:Ninth television seasons serves no useful purpose that I can see. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Aussie. I don't see the benefit. How will these categories help readers? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose is to identify how many shows have gone into that many seasons. Just like when we group seasons by year of air date, it lets us know how many shows aired during that year. Just as people might be curious about what other shows were airing during a given year, people might be curious about what other shows have accrued as many seasons. 20:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sherlock and Talk:List of Sherlock episodes

At the above there are claims that it is a British American co-production using cites that may be right or wrong and on the list of episodes since the new template allows multi countries and dates British and American date formats are being used setting what I believe is a precedent. As a non interventionist editor who does not get into edit wars, I think some guidance is needed from the experienced editor here. Over to youREVUpminster (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No one has commented but another tv series Jekyll and Hyde (TV series), An editor has used the multi airdate format to list Canada two months after it's initial broadcast. There must be a stop or every English speaking country will want an air-date. REVUpminster (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternate dates are acceptable under some circumstances and {{Episode list}} has always supported them. However, per MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates in the body of the article should use the same format. I don't see any reason for the Canadian dates in Jekyll and Hyde (TV series). --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I took out the Canadian dates and I was shot down on the Talk:List of Sherlock episodes re date consistency and life is too short. REVUpminster (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is an acceptable use of AltDate to you? So far as I am aware, Canada is the first country to pick up the show after its UK debut. Do we even know of any other countries broadcasting it? If it is the first extranational broadcast then this is notable to me. We're talking about the show getting exposure after its creator announced the originating network dropped it. 174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Citing TV guides behind pay and registration barriers

Would template:cite AV media be appropriate for this? Or perhaps template:cite AV media notes? I have just been using template:cite web til now. Would an online log-in TV guide be considered a template:cite encyclopedia? I am told there is some kind of registration=yes field to make use of. Bell Fibe TV has a basic TV guide anyone can view without logging in, but if you have an account and log in you can view a more extensive guide that goes more days into the future and also lists original air dates for programs, like when I view the guide for the TV itself.

Brought this up at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Template to use for TV guides and some repliers advised to ask here too.

Unfortunately it is just a basic page for the guide, I don't know how to produce any unique URLs to link to content, I can provide an access-date in good faith to show when I viewed it. I can't archive it due to the registration barrier. Unfortunately this means that once an episode airs, it would have to rerun and someone would have to find the rerun to verify the Original air date data I provide from it.

I have been told that taking a photograph of my TV showing the OAD or a PrtScn of the logged-in website guide is copyvio but since I am merely citing a date I don't see how, it seems like fair use to include brief snippets of something in the 'quote' field from a source for verifying basic data like air dates and titles. Would there be a way to qualify them for fair use if I cropped it to be a small-as-possible portion which was only large enough to show the title and OAD but small enough that it crops off a portion of the summary? 174.92.135.167 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Picking an online guide from the TV itself is rather difficult to cite, well, I suppose you could use cite AV media for that. I would suggest a URL-based website to login to get the content. You can list the basic Bell Fibe online website and then in the citation, put a "postscript=" to list what the commands and terms you used to navigate the site/app to get to the episode. Example: url=www.attuverse.com, postscript=. Search show "MyShow". Selecting "Episode 302" shows "Original airdate: 01/15/2016." Be sure to set the accessdate and set subscription=yes. If there's a direct link to a show page with episodes as with Netflix or Hulu, you could try citing that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Siya Ke Ram

Would someone from WP:TV mind taking a look at Siya Ke Ram and possibly assessing it? I'm not sure if including information about "dubbed" versions, etc. is something commonly included per MOS:TV and also not sure about the "Former cast" section. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just my two cents: former cast is a big no-no, per MOS:TV. Original cast should be listed first, with later cast members listed below in credit order. I'm unsure about dubbed versions, but perhaps expand the section to be more "International Broadcast"-y. --Unframboise (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)