Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

how do i join this group?

i want to be a part of wikiproject television and biography but can't figure out. please advice. xo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah312x (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sarah312x: WikiProjects are actually quite informal affairs, and you don't really even need to "join" one. As you were told over at WT:BIO, "joining" basically just means adding your name to the list of participants, as spelled out here. In WP:TV, that involves just adding {{User WikiProject Television}} template to your Userpage somewhere. But, really, simply editing and improving TV-related articles on Wikipedia means you're pretty much a "member" of WP:TV... Good luck! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

I've been trying to cleanup the infoboxes at My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 7) and related season articles but I've been getting some pushback from two editors there. I've reached three reverts for today so I'd appreciate some extra eyes on the articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Article naming discussion

Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Is “(anime)” a suitable disambiguator? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Adventures of the Little Koala again

I hate to say this again, but I would be very grateful if to many more eyes on Adventures of the Little Koala again. The unregistered user traced to North Carolina is slowly resuming to remove CBS and Cookie Jar without hard evidence from the page. If that person cannot come up with a good compromise, our only opinion is to have the page protected indefinitely. I already lost my interest on the show because of that ridiculous problem and just got back to it and I don't want to lose again. I feel so alone. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Star Wars characters splits

There is currently a discussion about a challenged split of List of Star Wars characters into multiple smaller articles based on individual Star Wars films and works, which involved the creation of eleven new articles. Currently, it is felt that the list is too long, especially after many past discussions to address this have gone unimplemented, and does not meet guidelines. However, it is also felt that the split structure is not effective and fails to improve. There is also a discussion about notability as it applies to character lists, whether all characters listed must meet a full threshold of notability expected for standalone articles or if there is a lesser threshold for inclusion on lists. Please see the discussion at Talk:List of Star Wars characters#This list doesn't meet the list selection criteria ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Friends GAR

Friends, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

TV Line performer of the week award?

Someone has added this distinction to numerous tv series articles in the awards section, for example Star Trek: Discovery. In my opinion this is not a notable award as it's essentially a blog writer's personal opinion as opposed to say the Emmys or Guild awards which are given out by notable organizations. I know that MOS:FILM has criteria for awards that say online only entities should not be included and though this project doesnt seem to have an awards section it should probably be compatible. Thoughts? Spanneraol (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's totally non-notable, with the weight of a blog post. MOS:TV refers more than once to "major" awards but that's about it. I fail to see how it would qualify as "major" in light of the Golden Globes, Academy Awards, etc. We should definitely address this explicitly to avoid people adding every single publication's/website's "shoutouts". —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, we tend to allow awards from the major reliable sources like IGN and Gold Derby, and TVLine is just as notable and reliable as them, if not more so in this context since they are TV specific. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The general "practice" seems to be if the award has its own Wikipedia article then it is considered "notable" and is included, and if it doesn't have its own article then the "award" is considered not notable enough to include. In this specific instance, a "Performer of the Week Award" seems quite silly, and should probably not be included... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Since when was notability dependent on an article existing in Wikipedia already? That doesn't make sense. We should be looking to reliable sources like normal. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS – just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it should be included. The "Wikipedia article test" is a decent method to determine whether an award is truly notable or not, subject to further discussions and consensus on the appropriateness of an award's inclusion or exclusion. An "Award of the Week"-type award, just on its face, does not seem like something we should be covering in a general encyclopedia... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Having a WP page as the standard is a pretty low bar. IMO, if it doesn't merit a mention in a major media outlet (NY Times, CNN, major OTA TV network, major radio network), it's not notable. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

For entertainment-type awards, Variety or THR would probably be the standards to go by... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Variety would suit me fine. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the major media outlet mention, and also feel an award/honour should be referenced in multiple of said publications/sources before we include it, and definitely it needs to be mentioned in sources that are not solely the originating publication. For instance, I've seen it argued that because TVLine is a reliable source, then its "Performer of the Week" nod is then somehow a notable award worthy of inclusion. This is false and a clear confusion of the reliability of a source with the notability of a subject. TVLine, as a publication, is clearly reliable. Its "Performer of the Week" designation is clearly not notable. And as for "we do this for other made-up, self-published, non-notable 'honours' from other publications/sources", well that is clearly WP:OTHER and those entries in accolades/awards sections should also be stricken. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with guidelines that mention major publications, as long as we are not using Wikipedia as our guide for whether something should be added to Wikipedia. That is obviously stupid; if we actually followed that paradox, Wikipedia would have no information in it. Also, if we do reach a consensus on this, I would strongly encourage users to NOT just go around deleting items from awards tables that they believe to not meet the new guideline. That has never gone well in the past, and can definitely be handled in a far more graceful manner. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an issue one way or another, but if consensus is to not highlight (as it seems), maybe instead of including in normal awards table, for the episode in which the actor was given the distinction, it can be included in that episode's article (if one exists) or on the relevant season article in prose form. Because I don't think an outright removal is needed. Just a reformat to show it isn't the same as say a Primetime Emmy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

...and that kind of solution is why I would honestly prefer if individual episodes of TV shows didn't get their own articles, except for exceptional cases that are considered standalone cultural milestones like the MASH finale. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not how WP:Notability works. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Adam, you recently linked me to the article on multiverse (the real-world scientific hypothesis, not the comic book concept) to explain how the show Legends of Tomorrow is set in the same fictional "universe" as Arrow and Flash but not Supergirl (set in the same fictional "multiverse") which implied to me that you had not read or understood our multiverse article. (I shouldn't need to explain this, but a show can't be set in the "future" of "one universe" but not the future of other "universes" in the same "multiverse" under multiverse theory, which is the subject of the article you linked me to.) Given this, I don't really want you lecturing me on the fine points of WP:N, so we will have to disagree. In my opinion, WP:N means we need to have enough reliable sources on a topic to write something that looks like an encyclopedia, with real-world context, no original analysis, and all the necessary nuance. The vast, vast majority of standalone episode articles I have seen on Wikipedia (many of them written entirely or mostly by you, although it was not you I had in mind writing the above) are based entirely on primary (promotional) sources of dubious quality, and I think the project would be better off without such pages. I am certainly entitled to hold this opinion, and even to express it publicly, am I not? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good move, bringing up a separate, irrelevant discussion to confuse this one. I never said you aren't allowed to dislike episode articles or think that bad ones should not be kept. But you just said that there should be almost no episode articles at all just because they are episode articles, and so I stand by my comment regarding WP:N. Any article, regardless of what it is about, should be kept or deleted based on the merits of the sources provided for it. So yes, you are certainly entitled to hold the opinion that we should not have articles that don't meet WP:N (that is common sense), but campaigning for the deletion of almost all articles based on an episode of television is just nonsensical. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that every time I write a comment like my initial one above I get a bunch of "Thank"s from random editors who apparently have this page on their watchlists but don't want to chime in directly for whatever reason, and that the vast majority of AFDs I have opened has ended in the result I anticipated, says otherwise. Most of our individual episode articles, including not a few that passed GA review, are in my experience garbage fluff pieces cited (almost?) exclusively to primary sources. WP:N says that any topic notable enough to have a standalone article must necessarily have enough reliable secondary sources covering it enough detail that we can actually write a good article on it. This standard is universally agreed upon among Wikipedians, except for certain editors of pop culture articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

#FakeNews, you don't just get to claim the opposite of the truth to "win" an argument. Everybody here knows what they are doing just as much as you think you do, so that's a silly angle to take. If you have a specific issue with an article that you think should not exist, then you are of course free to open an AfD discussion, but claiming that you know better than every other editor who has ever worked on an episode article or GA review of an episode article (even those articles that you have not assessed yourself, as you have surely not personally checked every single episode article to support your position here) is just childish. Unfortunately, it is not unexpected. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Civil to the last. I don't much appreciate how you say you know what you are doing but I only think I know what I'm doing: I've been editing Wikipedia a lot longer than you have and I have learned a thing or two, including in literally every single one of my content disputes with you where either consensus was on my side because I was right on the policy (or what the sources said). I have checked a bunch of episode articles, and with a very rare exception here and there they are primary-sourced fluff pieces. How many individual episode articles do you know that don't cite the Rotten Tomatoes score as though that was a remotely relevant statistic for an episode of an ongoing TV series? Or that don't cite a significant portion of their "development" sections to interviews and press releases? I've seen very few, and almost none on TV shows from the past ten years. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not list, this would be like listing placements on Total Request Live or music show "wins" in K-pop variety shows. Leave the notability for year-end major awards where they have a ceremony and the recipient actually gets something physical. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear that there is a consensus to not have this award listed but Adam refuses to let me remove it... can someone smite him for insolence? Spanneraol (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: Since this is Adam's issue now and no longer a normal content dispute, I would recommend WP:ANI or maybe WP:ANEW. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Repinging because I botched it above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted – as I said in the edit summary, a consensus has been demonstrated here, and if that belongs anywhere, it belongs at Sonequa Martin-Green, not at Star Trek: Discovery. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Everybody needs to calm down, especially Hijiri (as usual). The last thing said before Hijiri took us way off topic was an acknowledgement that we may have consensus to remove mention from the awards tables, as well as some proposals for where the information could go instead. So why did everybody all of a sudden decide that this meant a definite consensus to delete the information from articles entirely?! That's just ridiculous. I am not trying to pretend that there is support for my position where there is none (and I clearly no longer support that position myself entirely, which everyone has also decided to conveniently forget), I am just pointing out that we are still in the middle of the discussion with no decision as of yet on what to do, so the actions of Spanneraol and IJBall are frankly insulting and inappropriate. There is no need to make a big deal out of this, so can we please just finish the conversation before making brash edits claiming consensus? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There had been no further discussion on it for several days and no support for your opinion.. sure seemed like the conversation had died down and the consensus was pretty clear. Spanneraol (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Adam, this is a very serious, recurring problem with you. Every time there is a broad discussion and consensus disagrees with what you personally think should be in this or that -- or those or these -- articles, you just ignore the consensus and continue to revert with impugnity, but when one or two of your friends agree with you on an article talk page you insist that "consensus" is on your side (even when a dozen editors have spontaneously expressed the same concerns multiple times over several months or years). And then when other editors tell you off you get extremely defensive and start insulting them personally (or get one of your friends to do it -- you can definitely be held responsible for continuing to host this). It has to stop. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including such awards in article tables. IGN Awards, IndieWire Critics Poll, Golden Tomato Awards are all allowed so why not this as well? I do like Favre1fan93's suggestion that at the very least it should be included in prose on the season and episode articles since these nominations/accolades are followed by critical commentary. For example: Pilot (The Flash)#Accolades. - Brojam (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

None of those are weekly awards and all of them are more than just the opinion of one blogger and get reported on by trade papers. I have no objection to it being listed on episode pages if such pages exist but clearly not notable for a series. Spanneraol (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

In response to your comment above Spanneraol, I have already made it clear that I no longer completely support my original position, so stop saying that I do. You are not the first user to put words in my mouth like that, and it never ends well. Just because there appears to be consensus to not keep these awards in the tables does not mean you should. Going around deleting content when we are discussing possible places to move it to is very problematic and cannot be justified by "There had been no further discussion on it for several days". If you want to finish the discussion on what is to be done now that Favre and I started above, then that would be nice. And Hijiri, I will respond to your comments at your talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Adam, if one of your friends responds to a message on your talk page, explicitly doing so in your stead, and you not only don't tell them off but actively refuse to when requested to do so, or to blank their comments, then it is entirely appropriate to assume you agree with what they write: it is not "putting words in your mouth" to do so. And if you could please focus on the matter at hand rather than non-sequiturs about notability/deletion, and on content rather than these repeated snide remarks about editors you don't like. This is a WikiProject talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Adam, consensus is pretty clear.. there is no reason to keep these "awards" in the tables. Removing them is certainly the next step. Then you can continue discussion on if they should be added to the episode or performer articles. Spanneraol (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

If that is the consensus then that is fine, I just feel like this whole thing has been handled very strangely. For the record, for each article on my watch list where this info is removed, I will look to reintegrate it into the article in a more appropriate way based on some of the suggestions raised here earlier. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Please don't do that. Spanneraol misspoke: consensus is that these "awards" are not noteworthy and should not be cited, not that they are out of place in the tables but should be included in the prose. If you are sincerely unable to understand what the consensus is ... well, that raises its own issues. But if you actually did read and understand this entire discussion and are just wikilawyering based on Spanneraol's wording to express your intention to continue edit-warring, that is highly inappropriate. You can discuss reintegrating them into other (lower-vis) articles (not "the article" as you say), but please stop edit-warring. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Spanneraol: Another botched ping. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

You are insufferable, and after I went to all that trouble to write a peace offering at your talk page too. There is consensus that these should not be listed as awards, but that does not mean that they hold zero merit. There is no reason why these articles should not be used for critical commentary on the performances in other areas of the article, just as we would use a weekly review for the episode in an article about that series. Use some common sense and assume a bit of good faith before you jump to such ridiculous conclusions next time. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Way to assume good faith. I explicitly said I would read your comment and get back to you later. That was after I posted the above. (And your comment on my talk page was also after you posted the above.) You apparently promised above to continue edit-warring as you have been doing, and I told you to stop. If you think warnings about your continued edit-warring make me "insufferable" then I can get a fairly good idea of what might be in that long "peace offering" you left on my page. The simple fact is that experience has taught me over the past three years that when I read comments you direct at me late at night (which this is for me) it disrupts my sleep schedule. You might think it's "insufferable" to be told to abide by Wikipedia policy, but imagine how I feel to be told that I am insufferable for pleading with you to abide by the policy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, no. I don't have to deal with this. I came here to post a notification of a GAR on a popular TV show's article, saw another discussion related to our coverage of another TV show I enjoy, and decided to comment. But if the discussion is going to be about rehashing personal squabbles rather than improving the encyclopedia, then I don't want anything to do with it. Please ignore my above stricken comment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Is "TV" needed in (TV series) titles, or will (series) do?

Has this been discussed here before? The problem, if there is one, is the WikiProject Video games folk using (series) unless a (TV series) clashes. Opinions? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is needed per WP:NCTV, which states When disambiguation is required, use (TV series). -- Radiphus 15:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes – to differentiate from "(radio series)", "(film series)", and "(book series)", among others... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I'd have thought, and hence we never use (series) for (radio series) (novel series) (film series). So why use (series) then for video games when a (video game series) has no competing (TV series)? Why should (series) default to video games, not TV, books, films? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are you starting multiple conversations? Those commenting here should consider joining at WT:NCVG. --Izno (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I am starting a conversation at WikiProject Television because this affects WikiProject Television, and WikiProject Television has a much larger article corpus than WP Video Games. Also WP Video Games have already got a view on this subject, although that appears to be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. As indeed happens from time to time when projects don't talk to each other. Seen it before. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

So accusing certain editors of a particular view (a local consensus), and then going and shopping around for a different set of editors (another local consensus), is better than inviting everyone to the first discussion?

And no, it actually doesn't affect WP:NCTV (or even WP:TV). That guideline is allowed to say what it will about its series, entirely separate to what WP:NCVG says about its series, since WP:NCVG allows for additional disambiguation where necessary. I will note that they should probably be consistent, but WP:AT is king in the end, not any of a particular series (heh) of naming convention pages.

As for "a much larger article corpus", that seems rather irrelevant. --Izno (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It might interest y'all, but four sections up from here there's a notification of disambiguator discussion where some very similar questions are being asked, particularly those in the subsectiom Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#What about OVAs?. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Christopher Kimball's Milk Street episodes

At Christopher Kimball's Milk Street I tried to add episodes but cannot get the formatting right. Could someone please help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Though this is only a first pass at cleanup – some other things could be done, like having the dates be in the {{Start date}} template format. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

IJBall, thank you so much. I'll learn from what you do, and add more details as I find them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to merge 3 character articles into Mighty Morphin Power Rangers

A proposal has been made to merge Bulk and Skull, Adam Park and Tommy Oliver into Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. Please join the discussion at Talk:Mighty Morphin Power Rangers!—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 16:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:IMDb character broken

For anyone who does not know, IMDb has reorganised its character pages and consequently, {{IMDb character}} no longer works. The character information has not been deleted entirely, there is now just a lot less and the pages are at a different url. See, for example, Mr Spock. The template has now been nominated for deletion. For those interested, the discussion is here. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

PROPOSAL - Make MOS require airdate references after episode airing

I know the current procedure is to remove references for airdates after an episode has aired. However, we have multiple vandals who like to mess with airdates (see, for example, User:EvergreenFir/socks#Present and User:EvergreenFir/socks#British). To help combat this type of vandalism, and in the spirit of WP:V, I think we should have sources given for episode airdates. One of the easier ways to do this is to reference the Amazon or iTunes listings like I did at Danny Phantom. I honestly don't know why we remove references. Just add a general reference to |airdateR= and we'll be okay. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and I agree. See List of Rugrats episodes for a good example of a problem article. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we actually have it written anywhere that refs need to be removed after airing. I think it has just happened because there is general assumption that once it airs, that's good enough to confirm. Though I will say it seems this tends to be more of an issue with animated series. I wouldn't have any problem with refs staying if that needs to happen, though I don't know if we need to add it to the MOS. If anything, it definitely would have to be worded to not be a requirement, as it is just a guideline, but rather a suggestion. Something along the lines of If airdates for a series are contentious, it may be beneficial to include either a reference for the "Airdate" column in the episode table, or general citations in the Reference section that verify airdates. (I'm particularly fond of the later approach, including links to The Futon Critic, Zap2It and TV Guide to source general episode data once the ref is removed after airing.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with including airdate references after airing, but just not making it mandatory. Rather, as I think Favre1fan93 is suggesting, suggesting references are included where available. For many series, finding reliable sources for airdates may not be easy, so I wouldn't support enforcing it as mandatory, but if they can be added and kept, I think they should -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd support it as a "requirement", but referencing as much as possible in episode tables (not just airdates) should be strongly encouraged. However, I would support changing the MOS to state that "references for things like airdates should not be removed after (i.e. just because) an episode has aired". How this practice ever arose in the first place is inexplicable, and its continuation is perverse and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia as represented by WP:V. P.S. And, as always, the "cleanest" way to source multiple (past, or future) airdates, along with titles, etc., is to use a column reference in an episode table over a row reference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Using row references adds bloat to the References section. And if it's already big to begin with, well... Using a column reference means said references are only listed there once with letters next to them if they're being called multiple times. Also, WP:PRIMARY only seems to apply to credits here, but nothing else. For example, by just watching an episode, how can we tell it originally aired on, say, February 14, 2017? The answer is we can't. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And as most TV series, especially over the last 30 years, do not display the episode titles onscreen, TV show episode titles often need to be independently sourced as well, as WP:PRIMARY won't apply to them either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's mostly with live-action as well. Animation seems to still show episode/segment titles. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Column references work for me. I think we should try to strongly encourage this, but I understand the reluctance to make it required. There seems to be an IP editor or 2 who remove references from shows that have aired on the day they air. I think we should keep these until we get the column references personally. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93's suggestion concerning any addition to the MoS, and only requiring it if there is an issue with contentious airdates, by simply using |airdateR=. Outside of that, we don't need it for series where there is not an issue. -- Alex^TW 17:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a widespread issue though. It should become the norm not the exception to include references. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As already mentioned, it seems widespread only through animated series, and perhaps a few older series. I've edited hundreds of live-action series and have never seen this as a requirement. -- Alex^TW 17:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:V, which is a core policy, says "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". A lot of editors forget that, but remember that episodes are primary sources and seem to believe that the episode can be used to cite everything, not just the plot summary. This has become evident to me over the years, both in edits to articles and in discussions. WP:V supports inclusion of the references, and always has. MOS:TV doesn't need to mandate it, nor should it. Mandating it would be a requirement more strict than WP:V requires. However, if column references have been provided, they should not be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Bingo. Even for currently airing series, column refs that support either airdates or episode titles should not be removed simply because episode(s) have aired – this is straight from WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. So, per the quote from WP:V that you gave, it is only required for series where the dates have been modified and/or challenged. -- Alex^TW 18:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Alex – the quote says "...or is likely to be challenged..." You appear to live in a word of only currently-airing TV series articles, and don't seem to give any thought about what happens 10, 20, 30 years down the road when these shows are over and there are no editors around who can verify airdates from having watched them (which is quasi-WP:OR-y in any case). In short, any inline sourcing that supports any information on a TV series should not be removed. As per WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. For series where they haven't been challenged, then it's not necessary - as I stated, it seems widespread only through animated series, and perhaps a few older series. I have agree that it should be included where the dates are likely to be challenged already, however. Don't forget that sourcing overkill is also a thing. -- Alex^TW 18:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"...or is likely to be challenged..." It means exactly what it says. Likely to be challenged. Period. It doesn't say likely to be challenged already, it says likely to be challenged. So we don't have to wait for the first instance of date vandalism or what have you to occur. If a date change happens, to determine whether the change is correct or not, if we have column sources, we can quickly check the references without having to go searching for them because they were removed after said episode aired. What does it hurt to have column references there for past episodes? It doesn't hurt a single thing. In actuality, it hurts more to not have those references there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Not every series is likely to be challenge, so it is not necessary to include it for series where its not required, only series where there have been issues with dates. Can you provide proof that every series is likely to be challenged? I get that you guys have a lot of edit-warring over in the animated regions, but this is barely an issue with live-action series. No need to fix what isn't broken. -- Alex^TW 18:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I just said there doesn't have to be a history of issues. If we even think something will be challenged, then we should take steps to prevent that. This isn't one of those "if isn't broken, don't fix it" things. This is about following policy, which you seem to be really fond of, yet for some reason, you don't want to follow WP:V. Essentially this is another WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. On top of that, you're accusing other editors, such as myself and IJBall, of edit warring when 1) you have no evidence, which is funny since you asked for the same thing above, and 2) what we're doing is in accordance with policy and guidelines. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I know what you said. Doesn't make it correct. It's not up to us to think what may or may not happen, this isn't one of those "let's cover everything we can think of, even if it isn't necessary" things. I do want to follow policies, so if you continue to make accusations that I don't, you may be interested in seeing where that gets you. I am following policies here; however, it seems we have completely different understandings on what that policy means, and that's where the issue here stems from. Perhaps an RFC might be the best course of action? (Also, the edit-warring note was not an accusations, or specifically at you two (note that I never even mentioned names, so that's you drawing straws); I've simply seen a lot of back and forth in the animated section.) -- Alex^TW 18:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what single editors may think are the governing "policies", the consensus in this discussion is clear that inline sourcing shouldn't be removed after an episode airs (though it may be appropriate to relocate sourcing in some of these cases from being row references to column references...), and there is no policy requiring source removal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Do you want to know why IJBall and I, as well as other editors, have problems with you? This is why. You can figure out the details, because I'm not spelling them out for you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion started today. Stating that there is a clear consensus is definitely the wrong way to steer this conversation. I attempt waiting for either a clear consensus, or the suggested RFC. Now, if you have an issue with me, that's what my talk page is for, not this discussion - I recommend that you understand the difference very soon. -- Alex^TW 19:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You're the only one here against them, while everyone else is for them. So there's already consensus. I recommend that you understand the difference very soon. Or what? You're going to report us? Feel more than free, but good luck with getting any action taken. And just FYI, you're just making yourself look even worse by making threats like that. Not only that, but you're trying to control the discussion. If you think your tactics will work on me, then think again. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not against them. Nice try in your attempt to villainize me. I said that they're not necessary for articles that have not yet had conflict concerning the dates, but if they are necessary, then it's best to add them in through |airdateR= - my very first post in this was agreeing with Favre's suggestion, which is a more formal way of what I'm suggesting. And I said that if you have an issue with me, to take it to my talk page - WikiProject talk pages are for WikiProject matters, user talk pages are for matters about users. Actually, about that, why is this discussion here and not on the Manual of Style talk page? -- Alex^TW 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Inline sourcing should never be removed once provided, provided the source is providing accurate info. And, no, that's not what WP:OVERCITE (which is an essay, in any case) says. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Essays are just as valid - everyone here seems to be fond of using WP:BRD, which is also effectively an essay. And your statement is what is being discussed here, so I recommend waiting for a WP:CONSENSUS before making blanket statements. -- Alex^TW 18:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Funny, because whenever IJBall points to WP:READERSFIRST, it gets brushed off because "it's not a policy/guideline." You can't be selective. Either all essays are valid or they aren't. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed; I recommend you do the same. -- Alex^TW 19:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Note that lists don't have to be challenged by the addition of {{citation needed}}. Removal of disputed content is challenging the content. We tend to play on the safe side so if a citation is added to the column, it's best to assume that the addition of the citation is a challenge. There's simply no need to remove the citation in any case. A single citation for all episodes is future proofing. Had that been done to List of Rugrats episodes when the series was airing, we wouldn't have the problem that we do now, where there doesn't seem one consistent source for all episodes. This is not saying that we shouldn't be removing individual episode citations after an episode has aired. Personally, I don't like removing citations for any reason, but I'm fine with removing individual citations if the air dates are uncontroversial or a column citation is included. That said, something that seems uncontroversial now can be controversial in a few years time.

it is not necessary to include it for series where its not required, only series where there have been issues with dates. - Dates that seem uncontroversial now might be a problem in a few years. Nothing is written in stone. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make any recommendations, so I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:TVFAQ (a subpage of this project page) spells it out clearly under "Verifiability" that the references should remain even after an episode of a TV series has aired. (When a future airdate is referenced, the reference should remain even after the episode airs. Date vandalism is rampant, so being able to quickly verify an airdate makes the article more valuable and is helpful to editors who combat vandalism. For aesthetic reasons, references can be condensed, for example if one source is used for all airdates, editors can insert one general reference at the top of the airdate column in a table, instead of on every line...) MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For reference, that as added in February 2014 after no apparent discussion. Perhaps not the best support... -- Alex^TW 20:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I would leave them in, but if there is a reliable source that tracks the season as with TV Guide or Futon Critic, then that can be solved with adding the reference to the header. Then they don't need to be cited for every individual episode. Sometimes there are skips in a weekly schedule so those would have to be noted. It would be rather painful if it had to refer to a television guide as those are not easily archived, and it's rather silly but sometimes without choice to refer it to cite episode. Like when Netflix releases a series earlier than their planned date, and you get tweets confirming the material is out already. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In general, I would leave them in. That said, there are lots of sites, like TV Guide that keep all the airdates together. Thus, you could have 1 source at the top of each episode table that sources all the airdates without having to have 20+ sources each year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: That's exactly right! There's no need to clutter the References section with 20+ references when you can have column source that's listed once in the References section being called 20+ times. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, you don't even need a column for references. We didn't start doing that until someone started adding sources for every individual episode. You merely need to put the reference next to the "air date" header at the top. It should cover all episodes below it, then you repeat that for the other seasons and instead of 1 reference 100 times, you have 1 reference 5 times.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: Yeah, that's what I meant by column references. I didn't mean an actual separate column for the references, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Or you could add that one episode guide reference into a "General sources" or "External links" section at the bottom and remove any need for repetition. As an example, List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes includes a "List of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes on IMDb" link at the bottom of the article, which can easily be used to detect any date vandalism, and does not require reusage multiple times. -- Alex^TW 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I do wonder if making airdate refs mandatory doesn't create serious problems for shows long since off-air. Or is that not an issue? I also wonder if it applies to debut dates & such, for cancelled or current shows, which might also be hard to find. As for removing refs, if it's a problem, I'd put a note in the MOS "removal isn't mandatory" & "restoring isn't vandalism", or something, to avoid it arising. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To answer your question, I edit a lot of older TV series articles, and yes – not having a reference to verify episode airdates (and often episode titles as well) does cause problems (e.g. date vandalism does happen at some of these articles). The first place editors go in situations like this is IMDb, but I can tell you from experience that the accuracy of airdates in IMDb is for poop! Epguides is usually better, but is not without the occasional error, or the more than occasionally missing TV series entry. And for really old TV series, even Epguides won't help... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

First, Alex I might not go that route simply because episode tables are transcluded, so one way or the other you're going to have multiple references for the same thing. Might as well have them actually attached to what they are referencing. As for older shows, I would say that older shows need references more than newer ones (not that newer ones don't), simply because you don't even have a frame of reference. Take Friday the 13th: The Series for example. Depending on where you check, you can get different dates for those episodes because there was a discrepancy in reporting them on some websites. We can't simply trust someone's memory of when they were aired and IMDB isn't reliable to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Friday the 13th: The Series is an example of a very special headache: a first-run syndicated (scripted) series. The problem with these is that they would air on different dates in different markets, with as much of a range as two weeks(!) for an episode's first airing, depending on which TV market you're looking at. Honestly, I struggle with how to even handle these cases. I think the usual approach is to go with either the "date of first airing anywhere", or the date on which they were first released to the various TV markets. But this is a particularly difficult type of "air date" to find sourcing for... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's a touch of irony. I've mentioned List of Rugrats episodes more than once now. Today, these edits, all sourced to toonzone.net forums and rugratonine.com (which is inaccessible) were made. Had there been a column ref I don't think this would have happened. Fortunately we now have bots running around fixing dead links so if we make it standard practice to add column refs we should be right in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

My removal was reverted within 5 minutes. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I gotchu! Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mate. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's be honest here, at the end of the day the only thing we allow to not be directly sourced is the plot summary of an episode because you can verify it by watching it. Exceptions exist to lost shows, but overall we don't do in-line citations because an in-line citation would literally just be the information for the episode and thus you can watch it. Air dates and everything should always be sourced, because that's not something supported by a primary source (ala, primary source being the episode itself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

♠Can I add another wrinkle to the airdate issue? When you get syndicated shows on cable, how do you deal with the U.S./Canadian cross-border issue? Can you legitimately say "first airdate in Canada" based on appearing on a U.S. station, provided to Canadian cable customers? Or do you want to rely on that being U.S. market, still (presuming it never actually made it to Canada independently)? (I can't recall if "Friday the 13th" was OTA here or not... I don't think it ever was.)

♠That said, I'm not sure airdate of episodes not the premiere & finale really matter that much. (Unless I've missed the point & that's the real heart of the problem...)

♠One other thing, on the matter of premieres (& IDK if this has ever happened): what do you do if a network broadcasts episodes in different order in another market? IIRC, some Canadian networks have done it. This may be getting further afield than warranted, however... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC) (Post scriptum: thx for the answer to my question. :) )

Varying airdates by market can be resolved by picking a specific original network and sticking to that channel, knowing that other markets may broadcast the episode ahead or it or place the product in "on demand" video streaming. Footnotes can then be added about earliest broadcast. We've had to do that a lot on List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes but it all relies on keeping the references for the airdates. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I am completely in agreement with Amaury and IJBall on the need to specify that references should not be removed simply because an episode has aired. And since that seems to be a really common practice right now (removing references after the episode airs), then yes, that needs to be explicitly stated as "don't do this because it goes counter to WP:V". Given there are dozens (hundreds?) of instances of people messing with airdates, I think it's perfectly sensible to assume any airdate is potentially subject to dispute. As Bignole says, the only thing the episode itself gives us is the plot.

I don't mind row references but I guess if there's one source that provides airdates and titles for all episodes, then a column reference makes sense. I would go further and specify that references for airdates and titles should be included if possible. So not like "you are dead if you don't" but "it is best if you do" (so "should" vs. "must" since obviously there are some cases where there is no source). I'm not sure how this is a debate. As for if there's a debate on which airdate to use, I would use the first publicly available date. I specifically said "first publicly available date" there as I've had conflicts with people who believe "airdate" requires a traditional airing on a broadcast network. I think that is an increasingly silly distinction... if an episode has been made widely available on a particular date, that should be its listed airdate, even if that's via online means with later traditional airings on a broadcast network. This would match with WikiProject Film, where the first public release, even if at a festival a year before the film's wide release, is listed as the release date of the film. Footnotes or prose can be used to explain situations where one type of release precedes the other. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Creators of late night talk shows

I noticed that there is no consistency on who to list as the creator in the infobox of individual incarnations of long running late night talk show franchises. Some, like The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Seth Meyers list the creators of the original show, others like Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and Late Night with Conan O'Brien list who created that incarnation and others like The Late Late Show with James Corden don't list any creator at all. Personally, all three ways make sense to me, and I don't care which one we use. However, I strongly feel that whatever we choose, we should be consistent about it and apply it to all of the late night talk shows. JDDJS (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Seasons for release dates

See also: Talk:Descendants 2 § Summer

Are we allowed to use seasons when listing release dates? See here, concerning a release in Summer 2019. WP:SEASON states "Avoid the use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) as such uses are ambiguous". The reverting editor stated that MOS's are irrelevant when it comes to sources, stating that we can quote them verbatim per WP:V (is this a thing?), and that "it's unambiguous when it's directly from a source referring to an American production", disregarding the fact that the English server of Wikipedia serves the entire world, not just America. -- Alex^TW 17:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, when it's directly from a source in which the referred to "season" is unambiguous due to region. Geraldo's recent edit there is the way to handle this. Once you again, you are viewing the MOS as "rules" instead of "suggested best practices" – it means you follow them when it makes sense to, but not when it doesn't. And they certainly don't trump WP:V. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me taking this here, what with the last time we had a content altercation, your concern was about "winning" the discussion (your words). Can you provide a statement that says that content can be quoted verbatim while ignoring everything else this site runs on? I remember someone saying that either all guidelines apply or none do - I recommend you take this to heart. Nothing in WP:V talks about ignoring MOS's, so you attempt to be using a policy without anything to back it. You also appear to have completely ignored the rest of my content about regions. -- Alex^TW 17:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, Alex, that wasn't what I said before – but it doesn't surprise me that your reading comprehension of my posts is as poor as it is on policies and guidelines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I hope you don't mind me taking this here, what with the last time we had a content altercation, your concern was about "winning" the discussion (your words). Obviously, you don't understand context. Here is the exact quote from Talk:Tangled: The Series#Source: When it's 3-plus versus one, that usually shows you which side of the argument is "winning" as it were... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC) There was a reason IJBall put "winning" in quotation marks. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice, I just went to get that one, thanks for providing it. Quotation marks are irrelevant, IJBall talked about winning. -- Alex^TW 18:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And, once again, WHOOSH... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And once again, you're looking at it from a black and white view instead of using logic and focusing on the context. That's two-for-two. Do you want to try again? Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I find your comments "ridiculous" and disagree with your "edit-warring". I don't mean ridiculous and edit-warring, of course. -- Alex^TW 18:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I strain to want to disregard what a source says in this instance, but there is some precedent to not using seasons. If you think about it, in Australia (and English speaking country), summer is December through February, not June through August, like it is in the United States. So, an Australian reading that might mis-interpret what "summer" means. We cannot assume that they know the months of other countries. At best, I would probably change it to be, "released between June and August of 2018", or something similar. That's a little more description, still accurate until you have an exact date, and doesn't go treat Wikipedia like American Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Even "released in mid-2019" would be acceptable. The explanation of it being unambiguous due to region does not stick, as while the production may be American, readers from dozens of countries come to the English server of Wikipedia, and readers come first. -- Alex^TW 21:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The source is quite literally U.S. Disney Channel, Alex. There's no ambiguity as to what region/country they're referring to. In any case, I believe Geraldo Perez's putting the date in quotes effectively solves the issue, as we are quite literally quoting the source on that (and which does not use either a range or months nor the use of the word "mid"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would go with either "mid-2019" or "May-August 2019" (as that is typically the "summer" months of a TV schedule), but would avoid "summer", even though that is sourced, per MOS:SEASON and Bignole above. @IJBall: I also don't really agree with Geraldo's edit because the confusion of when "summer" is, is still there. Since we as editors know it means "American summer", using "mid" is probably a good route to go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant, there is nothing in WP:V that states we can quote verbatim against Manual of Styles. Either all MOS apply or none of them do. I wouldn't disagree with the months either, that covers all possible options, and agree with Favre. Geraldo even stated Mid 2019 as a possible option as well - it seems a consensus is forming. -- Alex^TW 22:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, months is worse that "mid" as implies specificity in the source that is entirely absent. And you don't have to keep telling us your absolutist views on guidelines, Alex – everyone is already very clear that you hold them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear. You might take on some suggestions from that. -- Alex^TW 22:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with those noting that this is not the American Wikipedia, and so even though we are talking about an American movie we should still do so in a way that everyone can understand. There is nothing wrong with avoiding vague terms like "Summer" which mean different things to different people. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Even though there is a source, you're still supposed to avoid using geographical season identifies when stating when something airs. Specifically for the reason I said. What is "Fall" to Americans is NOT "Fall" to the UK or Australia, regardless of where the show airs primarily. We look at things like spelling of words when it comes to determining when it's appropriate to use geographic origin. The catch there is that the words are still the same, just spelled differently (e.g., color to colour). We don't do that when the words have different meanings and there are better ways to represent the information without potentially confusing readers (readers, I might add, who outnumber Americans on the English Wikipedia). I guess I'm confused as to why there is such a fight to specifically say "Summer 2018", when there are viable alternatives that remove confusion, still follow the source, and have been suggested.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Because some us of editors believe we should always defer to sourcing, esp. over MOS-type concerns. (IOW, we shouldn't "second-guess" sourcing.) Also, in the original edits, Alex didn't replace "summer 2019" with "mid-2019" (if he had done that with an intelligible justification in the edit summary, we likely wouldn't be here) – he removed the word "summer" entirely, despite the fact that it was in the source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

2019 is still correct. Mid-2019 is just more precise, and now after this discussion, I also agree with it. That's how discussion works. (However, with the frequent tag-teaming against me, we most definitely would have still been here.) -- Alex^TW 00:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't say not to use a source, it identifies the best way to provide information. You trying to default to "quote the source" doesn't change what the MOS says about using seasons as timeline identifiers. Summer is only "Summer" here. Find a better way to identify when it is going to premiere. It's pretty much that simple. You're argument to include "Summer" when there are viable alternatives boggles my mind.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

an Australian reading that might mis-interpret what "summer" means. - As an Australian I can confirm that. Summer is when we have Christmas, complete with backyard cricket games and copious amounts of beer and prawns. (We don't have "Fosters" or "shrimp"). As for "fall" that's what you do when you've had too much beer and prawns while playing cricket on a hot Christmas day. MOS:SEASON does say that you can use unambigious alternatives but unambiguous means for the reader, without having to check the origin of sources. The example used is spent the southern summer in Antarctica. Clearly "southern summer" refers to the summer of the southern hemisphere, where Antarctica is located. The reader doesn't have to do any research to understand that. It's unambiguous. "summer" on its own is ambiguous regardless of how many sources are included. I remember seeing US articles about the 2000 Summer Olympics and referring to them being held during Australia's summer when it was actually the beginning of spring. In more recent years I've seen press releases quoting a "summer" start for a season that starts in late September. It's all very confusing. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The way it currently is listed is not good—it should clearly say "mid-2019". Even plain "2019" would be better, because while that would be less precise, it would be wholly unambiguous. Quoting that it was "advertised" as "summer 2019", while factually accurate, is completely misleading. That's the whole reason MOS:SEASON exists (I presume). —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ahh, The old "in quotes" trick. "Summer 2019" is wrong. Change it to mid-2019. - X201 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

While consensus has already been reached and the change to "mid-2019" was already performed, "summer 2019" is not wrong. It is exactly what the source states. If anything, "mid-2019" is the most inaccurate. Mid-year is June, or, if you want to be super technical, July 2. Either way, looking at the premiere dates of the first two films, they were definitely not mid-year. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not wrong, but it's not accepted here. And actually, per Merriam-Webster, a definition of midyear is "the middle or middle portion of a calendar year" (emphasis mine), meaning that "mid-2019" is indeed perfectly accurate and acceptable. -- Alex^TW 15:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Whoosh! Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome on the explanation, even if you don't like it. Interesting that while in a public location, you won't reply with the barrage of abuse you hurled at me at Talk:Descendants 2 § Reverts and Protection - any editor that's reading this is more than welcome to peruse it. -- Alex^TW 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking mid-year was more than just June, Amaury. If we divide the year into "early", "mid", and "late", and make it four months for each group, then "mid" would be May thru August, which would cover most of the North American summer season, but also more than one-third of its spring. Still, "mid" may be at the least slightly less accurate than the "summer" mentioned in the source. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Alex: Now you're playing the victim card. How cute. Your attempt to bully us didn't work, and when you knew you wouldn't get your way, you came running here to (hopefully) get other people on your side. We could very well make a case against you for WP:HOUNDING us by creating that unnecessary section linked to above. I couldn't care less about the wording at this point, it's your behavior toward other editors. And then when they've had enough and confront you, you start being sarcastic by "being nice" or playing the victim card. Oh, and you're such a hypocrite. You mention that I'm making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, and maybe I am, when you've done the exact same thing yourself a hell number of times. And I don't think I need to bring up again how many times you've been dragged to ANI. Oops. I just did. How clumsy of me. The point? Don't try that bullshit with me. You don't want to be confronted? Don't be a dick. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that this is the right place for this, or that the other editors would be overly appreciative of your tone here. If you have an issue, take it elsewhere. I also recommend you read your guidelines and policies before you make further accusations. -- Alex^TW 17:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't recall you being the boss at me. I'm well aware of guidelines and policies, if you want to play that card. I suggest you do the same. You want to report me? Go right ahead. But whatevs. I'm done with you. A stubborn editor who can't even realize they're the problem is not worth my time. I sarcastically wish you a nice day. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not, but policies like WP:NPA are the boss. I'm sure that the other editors who have read the discussion and your attacks know well to steer clear of you. Cheerio! -- Alex^TW 18:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

At this point I'm ready to report both of you and suggest an IBAN. Play nicely kids, or don't play at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree. -- Alex^TW 04:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Explaining it that way makes it make a little more sense, but I agree, it's still not the most accurate. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It's only "slightly less accurate" when viewing this entirely through the lens of North America. That's the basis for this discussion is that this is English speaking Wikipedia, and they speak English beyond just North America. "Mid 2019" is technically more accurate on a global scale, because the months are the months no matter where you go, but "Summer" means something different depending on the location.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: Since a consensus has already been reached, I obviously won't go against it. However, one thing to note is that Disney Channel is primarily US, which is also the primary market. That means if we mention X will premiere in [season] 2019, there should be little to no confusion. If there is, then it can be explained on the talk page. Not that I'm trying to exclude other parts of the world by any means, just that the focus should be on the primary market. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If we had a specific date, then that would be fine. Disney being the primary channel, if they say it's released on December 21, but it won't be released anywhere else in the world until January 1, we would only mention December 21. But here, it's about using a term that isn't globally used the same way to identify when something airs. It's not about the primary market here, it's about vocabulary usage.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: Okay, fair enough. Some of us prefer summer 2019, as that has been clear, but I understand that consensus is clearly against us, like I said, so I don't want to keep going on too much in that regard, I just wanted to mention that. Mid-2019 is better than just 2019, at least. Thanks for the well-thought-out explanation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Quite agreed. Summer does not mean the same thing everywhere at the same time, that much is obvious. Remember, WP:READERSFIRST. -- Alex^TW 18:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

New wording for WP:TVINTL

Hi all. Remember that thing we started back in August 2016 to update MOS:TV? Sorry for the lack of drive to complete. Anyways, there has been a proposed update to WP:TVINTL that seems to have consensus from the users who commented. Hoping to get more eyes/thoughts on it before it is implemented. You can find all the info regarding the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Release, with the proposal specifically at the "Proposal 1" section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#‎RfC: Infobox image

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doctor Who#‎RfC: Infobox image. This discussion has quoted TVIMAGE and NFCC concerning an infobox image, with the discussion relating to whether that image should be free or non-free media. -- Alex^TW 22:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Fairly OddParents#Confirmation show has been cancelled

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Fairly OddParents#Confirmation show has been cancelled. The show's creator, Butch Hartman, left Nickelodeon in early February 2018, and a number of editors (IPs, autoconfirmeds, and at least one EC) are assuming the show has been cancelled as a result when there has been no official word from Nickelodeon about its fate. Sources presented on the talk page or in edits made to the article do not explicitly state that Nickelodeon has cancelled the series following Hartman's departure. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

How to format "Deadline Hollywood" in articles

Hi all. This is somewhat relevant to our project since many of our articles cite Deadline Hollywood. There is currently a discussion regarding how the website should be formatted in articles, as well as in citation templates, namely if it should be italicized or not. If you would like to join in, the discussion can be found at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Title style. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Navboxes in episode lists

N.B.: I have invited discussants from WP:CLT, WP:SERIES and WP:WPT here for a centralized discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

At List of School of Rock episodes, there seems to be resistance on the inclusion of Template:School of Rock. Having created hundreds of these types of multimedia templates (see the lower part of User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created) it has generally become standard to include such templates on adaptations, sequels, episode lists, character lists, fictional characters, and sources. I am having trouble understanding why this particular episode list is any different than other episode lists. Since Amaury was the first to revert, I opened a discussion at User_talk:Amaury#Templates_in_School_of_Rock_articles, but got no response. I have since noticed that IJBall has also reverted this edit. What makes this episode list special in the sense that it is not well served by a navbox linking it to the other articles in the franchise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

If a navbox links to an article, then that navbox should indeed be included on the article, per WP:NAVBOX and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL - it works both ways; if a navbox links an article, include the navbox, and if an article uses a navbox, link the article. Unfortunately, "particularly not needed" is not a valid reason, other than one's personal views. You have the right to restore the template after a refusal to discuss the topic. -- Alex^TW 13:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Looks like they decided to have their own discussion elsewhere at User talk:IJBall#School of Rock/List of School of Rock episodes. Hope that helps. -- Alex^TW 14:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really see a need for the template and I wouldn't have created it but, as it has been created with 5 links (my personal minimum), I don't see why it shouldn't be used now that it exists. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Although the well-established WP:TFD minimum is 3 blue links in the body of the template, I generally only support navboxes with 4 bluelinks. As you can see, I have created a few hundred of these multimedia navboxes. Many only have 4 or 5 bluelinks. Not a lot of people are interested in templates with so few links, but TFD has a long history of supporting templates with 3 bluelinks. This link is very likely to survive a TFD discussion. As a viable template, its full deployment is pretty standard. I am not sure what is meant by the term "needed" in this discussion. Navboxes link related articles and these articles are related. What makes a template not needed when there are 5 or more related articles.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no actual set minimum for links. I use 5 because that's the general rule of thumb and I've seen plenty of navboxes with fewer than 5 total deleted, although I have seen some with only 4 kept. However, I agree that this would survive a TfD nomination so I don't see any point nominating it. As to what makes a template needed, I don't see any point into getting into that here. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AussieLegend well it would be instructive to understand what "needed" means since everyone else seems to use the term. You use the term as did Amaury and IJBall in their edit summaries. Is there something about this episode list or this franchise that makes a template less needed in this case than in other episode list articles or other franchises.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:NENAN recommends 5 links, which is usually where I set my bright-line "don't file a TFD" spot. --Izno (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen that pointed out. I have been involved in many TFD discussions that were solely based on the number of links and most voters there that have been involved in bluelink count discussions have used the minimum of 3 (not counting the primary article) and as such I have held to the personal minimum of 4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• None of the complainants (Amaury and IJBall) seem to have anything to say. I am no longer watching here. If someone has something to say, ping me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:3O Requested at The Last Kingdom (TV series)

I'd like another WP:TV regular to take a look at the 'Series 3' section of The Last Kingdom (TV series) and indicate whether they think it's appropriate (in whole, or in part) or not. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you initially removed it; I agree with you. It's entirely speculative, with words such as "unofficially promised", "should appear" and "If it follows the pattern of the previous two seasons". I cannot find any sources that officially states it has been renewed; the given source's basis is multiple sources inform RenewCancelTV, which we don't accept. Also, per MOS:TVUPCOMING, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The entire section should be removed. -- Alex^TW 14:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The other issue is that I believe "RenewCancelTV" is considered a WP:NOTRS around here, so it was also insufficiently sourced to begin with. Thanks for WP:3O! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Television episode ratings

Starting a discussion here for Helmboy (please wait for it to conclude before reinstating the edit), what are editors' thoughts of this edit on the template? -- Alex^TW 01:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Per sources on talk page discussion is not required. helmboy 02:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion is always needed for contested edits, especially on a high-usage template. This is not an article with sourced content, it is a template used on hundreds of articles. I recommend you self-revert, before you continue edit-warring and result in a block. -- Alex^TW 03:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk namespace template message for updating accessdate

It's a common thing, I've noticed, for an editor to update the statistics for websites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, especially for films and television series, and not update the access-date parameter when they do so. For editors that do not do this, a user talk namespace template message would be handy, so I've made {{uw-accessdate1}} and {{uw-accessdate2}} for this sort of situation. Enjoy. -- Alex^TW 00:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, a website often cited by this Project, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Requesting help on 'high priority episode' draft

Hi. I created Draft: The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis after seeing the to do list and seeing it listed as a high priority episode for creation. However, it has now been nominated for deletion. As a new editor, I've added all references & details that I could think of, can someone please guide me in what else I could do to make the page stick? Would appreciate the help, it's one of the first drafts I've created from scratch and would love to see it live on Wikipedia. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not nominated for deletion, the submission of it as an actual article has simply been declined. The draft still exists, and the declining editor has already given a reason for the decision on it. -- Alex^TW 06:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, yes, I wrote it in a hurry and made that mistake. However, my point still stands - I saw the episode on the to-do list of this WikiProject page and made it. But now it isn't being termed notable enough to convert into an actual article. What do I do next? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That list is chronically out of date, it was created in 2012. Simply work on the article more, definitely by introducing more real-world information into it. -- Alex^TW 06:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I've included whatever info I could find. Any guidance on what else I could add? TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MOS:TV updates: Reception section

Hi all, we have finally moved on to the next section for our larger MOS update. It is the "Reception" section pertaining to parent, season and episode articles. You can find and join the discussion regarding its text here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ratings from a twitter account

Is it correct to use Twitter as a source for the ratings of a TV show?, for example this account, publishes ratings daily, as well as for Spanish-speaking countries, as well as for the United States. The account is verified, but what happens with ratings for USA are a little contradictory, because sometimes they do not give exact figures, and according to them each TV program always have the same amount of rating. But it is a Twitter account backed by several popular television and web sites.--Philip J Fry / talk 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I would discourage the use of twitter as a source, even when it's a verified account. The problem comes with historical referencing, and deleted tweets can't be recovered through internet archives because of how the system is set up. IF they are posting ratings for shows, there is a good chance that someone else is posting them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that there are no other websites that publish the ratings, nothing else that Twitter account.--Philip J Fry / talk 19:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Then where are they getting those ratings from?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's the thing. You're asking if a source should be considered reliable enough to use. In this sense, I would say no to twitter because of how tweets work and being able to hold onto that source for verification purposes. Within the internet, we have the internet archives, which archives pages automatically across the web (or you can do so manually if you fear the page will be lost before the internet archives gets to it). Twitter doesn't really archive because of how its feed works, thus if the tweet goes away we will be forced to remove the content it is sourcing. I am one person on this. So, if you're really asking about whether a specific source should be considered reliable, the best place is really Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It is possible to specifically archive a tweet in the same way that we would archive any web source when adding it as a reference. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

My understand is that it's hit and miss because of how twitter stores their information from personal feeds.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like RS has addressed it at WP:TWITTER. Comes down to if the author meets the criteria necessary as it is a "self-published" source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bignole: Well, the source they use is Nielsen IBOPE Mexico and for the United States they use Nielsen Overnight Rating. And as I said before, that Twitter account is the only source that publishes the ratings daily. But I've noticed that sometimes they give bad grades. --Philip J Fry / talk 06:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Disappeared (TV program)

Sources: Currently watching the show on the IDGO App, where all seasons and episodes are listed in order.

The page for the TV Show Disappeared on ID, has episodes listed incorrectly, and I don't know how to edit the page to fix it. I tried copying and pasting the info into the correct place, but it didn't work.

For example, season 3 of Disappeared has 13 episodes, not 17, like is listed on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disappeared_episodes#Season_3_(2011)

The last episode on the IDGO App, is Episode 13: Silent Night.

And then from there, season 4 starts with Episode 1: Running For Her Life, and ends with Episode 14: Innocence Lost

Season 5 starts with Episode 1: The Road Not Taken - Episode 17: Missing By Design

Season 6 starts with Episode 1: Lost in the Dark - Episode 15: At the Crossroads

Season 7 starts with Episode 1: Somebody's Watching - Episode 10: Girl Interrupted

Season 8 starts with Episode 1: American Gothic - Episode 13: The Long Way Home

Season 9 starts with Episode 1: A Date with Danger (Note, this is a brand new season and the only episode that's aired so far.) JaSamFan2018 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@JaSamFan2018: It's probably best if you post your concerns about this to Talk:List of Disappeared episodes, as your message is more likely to be seen by other editors who are knowledgeable about this TV program there, and they may be able to help. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's worth noting that a "production season" may not correspond to a "broadcast" season, as may be the case here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Peep and the Big Wide World

I need more eyes on Peep and the Big Wide World. A user keeps adding fake spin-off of the show. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Archiving weblinks on an article

• Missing archive link: Archiving is not required, but is considered good practice. To archive: Go to IABot's Analyze a page. (Note that if you end up on the "IABot Management Interface", you'll need to find the small drop-down menu that says "Run Bot" and select "Fix a single page"). Type a Wikipedia article's title (carefully) on the line that says "Page title to analyze" Be sure to check the checkbox labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". Run time for the bot can be from a few seconds to five minutes. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1) Featured Article Review

FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated Parks and Recreation (season 1) for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.

If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

House (TV series) Featured Article Review

FAR coordinator User:Casliber has nominated House (TV series) for a featured article review here. This is a procedural review of its FA status due to the discovery of socking at its original FAC. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. The instructions for the review process are here.

If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Colors (Indian TV channel) and Viacom 18

Hi all, a brand new user created Colors (Indian TV channel) which has most of the same information that can be found at Viacom 18. The big difference is that the Colors article has a wall of satellite and cable channel listings. It looks like there might've been an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada which mentioned Colors (TV channel). This latter article was ultimately redirected to Viacom 18. Any ideas what should be done? Are all the channel listings noteworthy? Should they be merged to Viacom 18? I've opened a discussion at Talk:Colors (Indian TV channel)#Why does this channel exist?. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (season 8)

For many days, a user who we know as The UPN Vandal keeps adding Mark Hamill to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic (season 8) without a real reliable source and has been told repeatedly to stop it. The page is protected for four days now. I would be grateful to have more eyes on the page in case that user does it again. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

And here I was hoping for Luke Skytrotter to appear with his friends Bran Solo and Princess Leia Sparkle... SoWhy 12:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Olivia Pope GAR

Olivia Pope, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV. -- Alex^TW 21:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

RM discussion

An editor has suggested that Primeval be moved to Primeval (TV series). Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Primeval#Requested move 27 March 2018. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

That's My Boy (TV series)

A disambiguating uncertainty has developed due to the fact that three TV series – Two British and one American – have used this title. The discussion is currently active at Talk:That's My Boy (UK TV series)#Requested move 23 March 2018.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I Do (Lost)

I Do (Lost), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

One of Us (Lost)

One of Us (Lost), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr GAR

I've started WP:Good article reassessment/Roseanne Barr/1 and welcome input from others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) - move to mainspace?

Hi everyone. So, we have a pending AfC submission at Draft:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) for the upcoming fourth season of the show Fear the Walking Dead. I declined the draft at AfC back in January on the basis that it was too soon for an article about the season. It's been several months now and the season is set to premiere in a couple weeks. Editors are divided over whether now is the right time to move the draft into mainspace, or whether we should have a season article at all. Personally, I'm not sure, and I would appreciate further input at Draft talk:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) if you have time. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Wood as Seen on TV

Victoria Wood as Seen on TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

CfD notice

There's a discussion to rename the Category:Television shows tree to Category:Television programs/programmes at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 8#Category:Television shows by country. --Paul_012 (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Dream Team (TV series)

There are still some fictional characters that have articles that fail GNG, I am not sure about Didier Baptiste, that fictional character has some citations. However Jason Porter, Lee Presley, Leon Richards, Casper Rose, Frank Stone (Dream Team), Danny Sullivan (Dream Team) and Vivian Wright. I put Vivian Wright to AfD again, I am not sure if the names are really notable to warrant a redirect, I was looking to straight up delete them, Maybe someone else can look in them, cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of "(miniseries)" as a disambiguator

Further comments requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Can we deprecate the disambiguator "(miniseries)"? --woodensuperman 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of guest stars on The A-Team

The article List of guest stars on The A-Team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced list containing many non-notable actors and appearances. Some other pages in Category:Lists of guest appearances in television confine themselves to guest *stars*, but this one is not really useful even as a starting point.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic London 06:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Totally support PRODing this. I've PRODed articles like this in the past. It's both unreferenced and WP:INDISCRIMINATE... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

User who created it was also blocked indefinitely for copyright violations on September 27, 2016. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

On an unrelated article for an unrelated issue, what does this have to do with the PROD? FWIW, I support the PROD. -- Alex^TW 13:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a pretty high correlation rate between "blocked" editors and "bad" page creations. It's relevant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

That may well be the case, but this article isn't being PROD'ed for copyright violations. -- Alex^TW 14:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support deletion if it needs so on an AFD. This isn't List of The Love Boat guest stars where the guests are the featured aspect, but a regular program that has guest actors. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Can this list be merged to the A-Team page? Yes, unref'd; so are a lot of the lists of guest stars on other pages. Keep the most famous, or the recurring guest stars, & ditch the rest. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Preferably not – despite what some people around here seem to think, guest cast listings need to be verifiable, which means every guest star needs to be either sourced or the title of the episode they appeared in needs to be listed for them (e.g. WP:PRIMARY). And, for a list this long, which guest cast do you bother to list?! – All of them?! Just some of them?! Just the "notable" ones?!... And how do you decide?!... In short, I'm really not sure there's anything salvageable here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

♠If that's true, there are a bunch of guest appearances that need to be deleted, starting with "Lois & Clark" & "Combat"--to name jut 2.

♠As for which guest stars, as said, just the best-known, or those who appeared twice or more. Knowing who's famous & who's not isn't that hard, is it? Would you keep Joan Collins on an "STTOS" page? Or Leonard Nimoy on "Twilight Zone"? I would. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As I've said in the past, in general, I'm not a big fan of "guest cast" lists – "main" and "recurring" cast, yes; "guest stars", not so much. (Honestly, I'd rather see those included in the episode synopses...) But, if you're going to do it for long-running series like The A-Team, it probably makes sense to restrict the guest cast list to only those that can be independently sourced (and, FTR, I'd still include the episode title of appearance on top of that...). Your two examples would be easy to make meet that requirement. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there are some rare exceptions where it's fine to list guest stars who aren't recurring, like in spin-offs, where main actors from the original series make guest or special guest appearances in the spin-off. Although even with that, it should be in prose and not an actual list. Other than that, though, we don't need to mention non-recurring (special) guest stars. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move of TV listings (UK)

Additional input from members of this WikiProject would be welcome at a move discussion in progress at Talk:TV listings (UK)#Requested move 10 April 2018. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I second the request above. The discussion needs more input, especially from TV project editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists?

Does Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists meet WP:TVSHOW? As a TV pilot that has so far not been picked up to series, it does not seem like it meets TVSHOW, and should probably be moved to WP:Draftspace in the meantime... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Another option would be trimming, and merging to Pretty Little Liars, and converting to a redirect, I suppose... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Edge (Fox TV series)#Requested move 15 April 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Edge (Fox TV series)#Requested move 15 April 2018. Discussion on this WP:RM discussion seems to have stalled, so soliciting more opinion from WP:TV regulars on this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

HTML errors in television articles

I'm going through Special:LintErrors, and I've found a few dozen high-priority errors in articles tagged by this WikiProject. The wikitext parser is going to change in June, and any page with an error may display strangely.

What's needed right now is for someone to click these links and compare the side-by-side preview of the two parsers. If the "New" page looks okay, then something's maybe technically wrong with the HTML, but there's no immediate worry. If that column looks wrong, then it should be fixed.

The first list is all "deletable table" errors. If you want to know more about how to fix these pages, then see mw:Help:Extension:Linter/deletable-table-tag. Taking the first link as an example, there is highlighting in the wikitext that shows where the lint error is; it's in the ==K== section. Looking at the preview, they don't look the same. I suspect that the problem is that someone removed most, but not all, of the table that was in the ==J== section, so this may be simply a side effect of unnoticed vandalism (unless there have never been any fictional countries whose names start with J?).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_countries?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92788441
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Meola's_Sidekicks_Soccer?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=49672251
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Meola's_Sidekicks_Soccer?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=49672252
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Griffith?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92399186
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Higgins?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91118596
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence_Engine?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=76560980
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Championship_1992?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=39622993
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Academy_Games_Award_for_British_Game?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=75341837
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_(series)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=83061829

This second list is "misnested tags". See mw:Help:Extension:Linter/html5-misnesting for more information. The highlighting indicates that the problem is in {{nihongo|'''Skyloft|'''スカイロフト|Sukai Rofuto}}. It's probably because the three apostrophes (to end the bold) are in the wrong parameter for the template (it should be three apostrophes, Skyloft, three more apostrophes, and then the pipe).

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_of_The_Legend_of_Zelda?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=89383983
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDK_(video_game)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=78229062
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Live_99?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=79414163
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Emblem:_Shadow_Dragon_and_the_Blade_of_Light?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=82782154
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Hill:_Homecoming?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=88409314
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Jedi_Knight?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80034441
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_and_Mayhem?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=49466539
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwasa_no_Midori-kun!!?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80148663
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrospace?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=72275301
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Crime_(series)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80211515
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDK_(series)?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=80281256
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akuma-kun?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=91493858
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_video_game_terms?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=92477318
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Grand_Theft_Auto_V?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86771472
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunman_Clive?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=48052320
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_HoloLens?action=parsermigration-edit&lintid=86011160

For more help, you can ask questions at Wikipedia talk:Linter. Good luck, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Reunion (Westworld)#Move into main space

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Reunion (Westworld)#Move into main space. This discussion whether Reunion (Westworld) should or should not exist as a mainspace article based primarily on the existence of plot and reviews; the same applies for the previous episode, Journey into Night. -- Alex^TW 04:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

merge nomination

I have made a nomination to merge Category:Televsion actors to Category:Actors. I have also tried to start a village pump discussion on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

TV movies and notability

We really need to add something to WP:NTV about TV movies. The fact of the matter is: most TV movies are not notable enough for standalone articles on Wikipedia, because they have no hope of clearing WP:GNG. (Of course, the same is also true for individual TV series episodes, but let's leave that aside for now...) In other words, the number of TV movies that achieve the level of notability of, say, The Burning Bed (and this article is currently under-soruced – I imagine there's a lot more sourcing out there for this one...) or The Day After, is very low indeed.

I am seeing far too many "junk" TV movie articles created lately (e.g. Green Dolphin Beat) that do not meet WP:GNG, enough that we need to add something about this to our TV notability guideline (a la the whole section on TV pilots...).

Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Who decides notability? TV films in the US are cinema films in other countries. Wikipedia seems to have unlimited capacity so does it matter? REVUpminster (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as per WP:GNG and also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Green Dolphin Beat seems to fail the existing threshold for notability because it has a single citation. This is so basic across all Wikipedia articles that I'm not sure why we need to single out TV movies.— TAnthony^Talk 19:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Because, as I said, as a "format", TV movies generally will not be notable. That's especially true of TV movies made since about 2000, but even a lot of "earlier" TV movies will not be notable (e.g. we almost certainly do not need the Buried Secrets (film) article!!). Thus, I think it would be useful if something along the lines of Many television films do not receive extensive independent coverage, and thus will not be notable enough for a standalone article." were added to WP:NTV. Even a sentence like this will be helpful in deletion discussions IMO (and can also be cited to prolific TV movie article creators.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And why do you just assume that tbese tv movies are not notable? Have you looked to see if they were covered in the hollywood press? Pretty much everything that airs gets covered somewhere in the trades, be it reviews, articles about the production etc.. especially if they contained notable actors. Saying simply "we do not need" such and such an article just betrays your personal bias but isnt actually policy. We don't "need" any article but that doesnt mean they arent notable or worth keeping. Spanneraol (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, see, that is the point. TV movies do NOT get covered anywhere near as much as TV series (or even TV pilots) do. TV movies generally don't even merit "casting" notices in the trades like Variety. Again, if people cannot find sourcing for these articles, they are certainly not notable – Buried Secrets (film) has existed for almost 10 years, and there are probably 100s more TV movie articles like that. And please don't cast Aspersions – doing so is totally unnecessary in this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I found a couple of contemporary reviews in legitimate publications [1] [2].. Thats from a quick google search.. I'm not the greatest at searching through online archives of pre-internet era papers though so i'm sure someone who is good at that could conceivably find more. I just dont think you can lump all these films into one group.. some have more interest than others... current films are much easier than these old ones to find info on. Spanneraol (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm not trying to "lump all TV films into one group" – at the top of the topic, I included two TV films that almost certainly are notable. (Duel would definitely be another.) That's also why my suggested addition says "many" TV films, not "all". (It could be amended further, I suppose, to "some"...) But good luck trying to get anything more than "capsule reviews" (see WP:NFSOURCES) for most anything that is released these days on Hallmark or Lifetime channels. Most TV movies, especially over the last couple of decades simply do not get coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Duel (1971 film) is an American TV film that was a "B" feature in UK cinemas but is probably one of the most notable tv films of all time. How do we know that a modern tv film with an unknown writer, directer, composer, stars might be another one. REVUpminster (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh, by available current sourcing. As per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we are not to assume some unknown "future" notability potential. (If that happens, an article can be created later.) The point is, probably 90% of TV movies do not get enough coverage to be "notable" (and, no – reports on TV "scheduling" does not contribute towards this), and do not merit Wikipedia articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have to wonder what that does to, frex, "The California Kid", which lent the name to a rather famous hot rod...? Or to the "Stargate" TVMs? Or to a variety of TV pilot pages, like "Plymouth"? Or "Genesis II"? ("Duel" got lucky, having Spielberg associated with it...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It all boils down to coverage: some TV movies absolutely do/did get significant coverage; but plenty do not. My point was that, as a "format", we're unwise to lump "TV movies" in with TV series, in terms of WP:NTV – if a TV series airs nationally, that almost certainly does mean there will enough coverage out there to justify an article; but that is actually not true for TV movies – just because a TV movie airs "nationally" doesn't mean it will get significant independent coverage (which is I'd like to see WP:NTV make some kind of separate mention of "TV movies"...). In terms of your examples, it depends if there's coverage – just guessing, but I suspect there is coverage out there on The California Kid (though it might be hard to find on the internet...). The Stargate TV movies, I'm honestly not sure – you would assume that they would have gotten "significant" coverage, but that might not be a correct assumption. So-called "backdoor pilots" like Plymouth or Genesis II are actually already covered under TV pilot in WP:NTV – but TV pilots are another "gray" area: just because a TV pilot airs nationally doesn't necessarily mean it'll have gotten coverage (and that's especially true of TV pilots that were "burned off" during the summer, back in the day...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

♠To my knowledge, neither "Plymouth" nor "Genesis II" was backdoor anything; both were TVMs that never got picked up for series. (As opposed to the "NCIS" pilot being a "JAG" 2-parter; AFAIK, never seen as a TVM. Or as opposed to "Assignment: Earth"...which would survive based on coverage of "TOS".)

♠I'd say anything broadcast on a national network is getting enough coverage, by default. It'd turn up in, frex, TV Guide, & might be in Variety or somewhere; how much does it take? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Different editors will answer the last question differently, but for TV articles my answer would be that you need both articles covering production (e.g. casting) and in-depth reviews (i.e. not capsule reviews) to count as "significant coverage". Many TV movies get no significant coverage about the former, and get at best capsule reviews in terms of the latter. So, no, I'd say they definitely don't get enough coverage "by default" like TV series do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wonderfalls#Episode order revisited

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wonderfalls#Episode order revisited. Another discussion about episode ordering in episode tables is ensuing, which is of general interest to this project. In addition, this discussion also touches on Firefly (TV series) as well, so more opinions on this would be useful. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Challenge (TV series)#Champs vs. Stars (naming)

Not getting responses locally so was wondering if there was any other input from others for the discussion located here: Talk:The Challenge (TV series)#Champs vs. Stars (naming) in regards to the Champs vs. Stars series. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Powers and abilities sections for Game of Thrones character articles

Opinions on are needed on the following: Talk:Daenerys Targaryen#Here's what I'd like to do. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns creating a "Powers and abilities" section for someone like Daenerys Targaryen and other Game of Thrones characters who have powers, and whether such a section can be encyclopedic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Palmetto Pointe – Yea or Nay?

Before I think about taking this to WP:AfD, I'd like to solicit opinion here first.

This is a case that absolutely tests the limits of WP:TVSHOW – Yes, it aired nationally. But it was such low-profile/so lowly-rated that it got almost no coverage, especially in 2005 (the year it aired!!). There is nothing on this that I can find in Variety (which shocks me, as they cover everything, even TV shows for toddlers!!), THR, Entertainment Weekly, or The New York Times or Los Angeles Times. I gets a perfunctory entry at TV Guide. It doesn't even have an entry at EpGuides.

The only legit source I've been able to find on it is an article, five-years after the fact, in The Post and Courier of Charleston, South Carolina (where the series was filmed, which possibly explains why it didn't get coverage in the usual L.A./NYC outlets...). Indeed, is the fact that it was the "first" TV series to be filmed Charleston, South Carolina in and of itself enough to make this series "notable"?

So, is this show actually notable?! I'm curious to hear any WP:TV regular's comments on this, but I'm going to ping TAnthony to this, as I'm particularly interested in their opinion on this one.

Full disclosure: I remember this series, and watched the pilot – it was the most low-budget, amateurish "TV series" I've ever seen reach air on American broadcast television, and was about as well-produced as a cable public-access TV show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Confederate (TV series)#Requested move 13 May 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Confederate (TV series)#Requested move 13 May 2018. This move request concerns the move of a television series article to the draft space, based on the fact that the series' production is still in development and has yet to receive a series order. -- Alex^TW 09:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Magnum P.I. moved

Somebody just moved Magnum, P.I. to Magnum, P.I. (1980 TV series). I object to this move – in a similar situation, we did not move Fantasy Island to Fantasy Island (1977 TV series) just because of Fantasy Island (1998 TV series) because the former was clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The same applies here – the 1980 TV series is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC until shown to be otherwise.

I'd reverse this move on my own, but this likely requires an Admin to undo it. Pinging Cyphoidbomb. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't need an admin, just a page mover. Reverted the move. This is identical to the recent move (that I reverted) at Charmed to Charmed (1998 TV series). -- Alex^TW 12:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep on the lookout...

Keep on the lookout... It's May sweeps, so every new editor is wanting to create articles for newly announced series that haven't gone into production yet. Just take a look at my contributions of trying to battle this. -- Alex^TW 14:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Heck! – You'll see editors creating articles in March of every year for TV series projects that have only received pilot orders! [sigh... ] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I fully support boldly moving such articles to Draftspace --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In lieu of us not yet having a proper notability page, WP:TVSHOW applies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget the TV season articles for next season. Category:2019 American television seasons had its first entry today. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

'tis the season! -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wicked Tuna

Please give the new editor a hand at Wicked Tuna. The episode table seems to go to previous version of the article. I don't know why. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please help. The episode list table has all circ links. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I think it's "fixed". If not, just followup with more details here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, thank you so much! You are wonderful, IJBall. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Corner Gas Animated Ratings

I am looking for Corner Gas Animated ratings. I've done searches and can't find anything outside of the first episode "Bone Dry" which has already been added to the article with a source. Any help would be appreciated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Lucifer episodes#Bonus episodes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Lucifer episodes#Bonus episodes. -- Alex^TW 00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

TVShowsOnDVD

Just an update, I know a lot of editors used TVShowsOnDVD for home media releases and covers. Per their site, they're officially shutting down the website, but they'll be remaining active on Facebook and Twitter. More here. -- Alex^TW 06:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been going to that site for more than 10 years, so it's definitely sad to see it go. It's going to hurt us big time because all the references we use here just redirect to their main page. For an alternative, I also use Blu-ray.com, which does have news postings for new releases, but it's definitely not as extensive as TVShowsOnDVD.com was. Though we'll have to see how they handle their Twitter/Facebook, to see if it's acceptable to still use as a source. Edit: Some other good sources are Media Player News and High Def Digest. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by this news as they were quite a popular website if you look at their monthly views. Also, it looks like Wikipedia accounted for 40% of that traffic according to Similarweb. There's going to be a lot of pages in need of update I would imagine. Esuka323 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

As a fortunate note: older links on the site appear to be cached at the Wayback Machine (archive.org). There probably should be an effort to make sure appropriate archiveurl and archivedates are added to existing references using TVShowsOnDVD. --Masem (t) 13:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Bot job started by Cyberpower678 to mark the site as dead and archive. -- Alex^TW 03:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 28 May 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 28 May 2018. This concerns a mass-move request for articles under WP:BIGBROTHER, and WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Coast vs Country

I have just been looking at Coast vs Country and noticed that this is a brief article, saying that it is a reality television series and has aired since November 2016. Do you think it should be put up as a candidate at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion? Vorbee (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it needs more souring to demonstrate that it meets WP:TVSHOW/WP:GNG. If it doesn't get that soon, then WP:AfD is reasonable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Roseanne Barr

There is an RfC at the Roseanne Barr talk page found here that members of this project might be interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Gary Garfinkel

Hello. Could someone please expand Gary Garfinkel? I read his obituaries and decided to create a stub but I am not an expert about television. Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"TBA" for released series ?

The Smurfs episodes were aired during the 80s but the term TBA (To be announced) is used for writing credits of several episodes. I don't think the term is right for credits that won't ever be "announced". I think we should replace it with something else. (I've just discussed Luigi1090, he thinks it would be a "vandalism act" to use another term). What do you think ? Elfast (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Use {{TableTBA|N/A}} instead – no one should object to this. P.S. "TBA" should not be "typed out" in those tables anyway – they should be left blank, letting the template handle it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting Netflix Titles

Hello WikiProject Television,

Although I've technically had a Wiki account for over a year, I've only been dabbling with editing from time to time, so I'm still very much a novice. If I've placed this request for help in the wrong place, please forgive me. I would appreciate any feedback on how I can do better.

I'm currently active in editing Busted!. It's a Netflix Original made to appeal to the Korean and global market. The thing is, there is conflicting information about the show's title. When watching the show on Netflix (U.S.), it comes up as simply "Busted!" However, when it was originally announced to Korean news sources, they were given the name 범인은 바로 너, which can be translated in different ways. The literal translation is "The Culprit is You" or "The Criminal is You." On the other hand, Netflix's press releases in English refer to the show as "Busted! I Know Who You Are" or simply "Busted!" in their press release titles. Korean news sources that report in English have done used both titles from Netflix's press releases.

My questions: Is using "Busted!" as the article's title correct, or should it be using the longer title "Busted! I Know Who You Are"? On the side box for the article, I changed the title to "Busted! I Know Who You Are" but another editor reverted my change. In retrospect, I understand the reversion. However, I feel like the official long title should somehow be part of the article's basic info. Where does it fit in?

Thanks for any guidance you all can give this noob. Filamjam (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Follow the predominant title/usage in reliable English-language sources (both WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SECONDARY (if there are any of the latter)). A literal translation should not be used in lieu of how WP:RS refer to the film. Add: BTW, as it sounds like two titles have primarily been used, they should both be mentioned – it sounds like "Busted!" is what Netlfix lists the film as, but the longer title should at least be mentioned in the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Otōto (TV drama)

The article Otōto (TV drama) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article appears to have been unsourced since it was created in 2007, and has been tagged as such since 2012. There's no corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article which might be used to find sources relevant to the article and a search for such sources came up empty, so this does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Takuya Kimura is a very well-known Japanese actor, but this seems to be something he was in very early in his career when he was not as famous as he is these days, so the show might not have generated the press coverage that some of his later shows received.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wayward Pines#RFC

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wayward Pines#RFC. -- Alex^TW 09:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nationality of TV series

A discussion on the talk page of Downton Abbey raises wider issues that belong here, relating to PBS Masterpiece programmes generally, and indeed how the stated nationality of TV series is determined across WP. These two issues are summarised below.

Firstly, however, the 'problem' is best illustrated using Downton - described on WP as British-American (as are other Masterpiece series - an outcome that edit & talk history reveals was fought for across multiple pages by a tiny handful of editors).

Yet Encyclopaedia Britannica (US headquartered) describes Downton as "a British television series". IMDB has country of origin as "UK". In the UK, Downton is described by the Guardian as "British TV drama", by the Telegraph as "a British television show", and by the Radio Times as "British television". In the US, Downton is one of CNN's "British TV shows that are watched all over the world", described by the Washington Post as a "British TV show", the New York Times as the "popular British TV series", by Fox News as "Britain's hit TV show", the Philadelphia Magazine as "the popular British TV show", and by cabletv.com as one of "America's favorite British TV shows". NME.com refers to the "British costume drama series" and vulture.com as a "British show". Pressreader.com: "the British television series". By a semi-academic book of critical essays about the programme as "this British series". You can hunt through local newspapers and media sites across across the States and find similar. Hollywood Reporter: "a British import". Amazon.com sells the DVDs as "the original UK version". Nola (New Orleans) media group: "acclaimed British series". Forbes.com says the "show has been sold to over 220 territories, which is an incredible feat for British television". Los Angeles Times: "British television series".

Across the world...in Canada Canadian Netflix categorises Downton among "British TV Dramas movies and series". ETCanada refer to the "popular British series". India, Ireland, Singapore, Australia - global reputable media outlets mostly contain similar. Yes, there is indeed a very small sprinkling of references to "British/American" on the internet, but few from more reputable sources; indeed, most of the hits derive from text back-copied from WP itself.

Regarding PBS/Masterpiece, PBS refers on PBS.org to "The blockbuster successful British TV series", and its executive producer Ms Eaton to new funding including for more episodes of Downton as part of "truly a golden age of British television and we're very proud of this affirmation of the MASTERPIECE brand". WP's own page for Masterpiece (TV series) refers to its role being to present "acclaimed British productions" and the same role is widely referred to online, for example "PBS for British programs" (an American media website), Weta.com (greater Washington) refers to PBS's series "featuring British adaptations", Time magazine to Masterpiece as PBS "British drama", decided.com's description of Masterpiece as "dedicated to showcasing the best in foreign — in this case, British — entertainment", etc.

This lengthy canter through the sources underlines how significantly out of line is the WP article with the RS.

The two issues that arise from this are:

1. Synthesis to arrive at a different conclusion to reputable sources

Across WP, standards of referencing are rightly high. Especially at GA and FA, the most pedestrian of facts must be referenced directly; editors do not include statements based on their own analysis or synthesis of information derived from sources (even where likely to be correct). Why should the nationality of television series be different?

Articles should surely reference authoritative sources directly, rather than editors conducting their own research into the various individuals and entitles referred to in credits and elsewhere, in order to establish their (and hence the programme's) purported nationality.

If the answer to this first question is that nationality should indeed be referenced directly, then the second question falls. However, if the Wikiproject can justify its different approach, the second question arises:

2. Why should funding and distribution change the nationality of a creative product?

This is pertinent to Masterpiece. No-one would take such an approach with art, literature or music - for example, I might personally provide 100% of the funding, and some high-level direction, to commission a foreign (to me) author, artist or composer to produce a book, painting or piece of music to my broad specifications. No-one would then claim that this makes the artwork (in my case) part-British! If I tell and pay an Italian artist to go paint a picture of a particular Italian town, it remains an Italian painting.

How is television different? PBS/Masterpiece is widely referenced as a brand that delivers British television to American audiences, sometimes putting up 10-15% of the funding and getting some high-level advance input into the nature of the end product. But the product remains British television, produced and directed by British people (and in Masterpiece's case usually with mostly British storylines, locations and casts), and is widely recognised as being British television by reputable sources ex-WP.

This suggests that, even if a non-referenced approach continues, our decision process need to change, focusing on the nationality of the creative product rather than who might help to pay for or distribute it. But it would be better, cleaner, simpler, and more consistent with the WP-wide approach and with the standards applied to our very best articles, to require direct referencing of statements as to a series's nationality. Where sources conflict, we already have policies and lots of experience to resolve any issues. MapReader (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The first order of business must be to establish what, exactly, is the current procedure (guideline, consensus or whatever you prefer) for determining "production countries". Can someone, for the purposes of setting a baseline for further discussion, articulate how exactly Downton Abbey (for instance) comes to be referred as British-American (which in turn means no mention is actually made, since policy on co-productions says not to)? CapnZapp (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

As per WP:TVLEAD – If a series' nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g. being produced solely by American production companies), it should be identified in the opening sentence. – so "dual" or "multi" national productions should not have countries listed in the lede, only single-nation productions should. (This is similar to WP:FILMLEAD on this score.) So, regardless of whether describing Downton as "British-American" is accurate or not, it should not be listed that way in the lede... As per multi-national productions, I don't know that we have a "rule" on it, but in general I think the procedure is to "Follow the money." If a substantial portion of the production funding was put up by American PBS, then you can call it a co-production. But, really, if Downton was going to be produced in the UK with or without PBS's funding, then I'd say it's really a "British" (only) production... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

"defined by reliable sources" clearly suggests we should be following reputable sources, in which case this whole discussion is redundant and Downton is British, end of. On your second point, PBS typically contributes 10-15%. However I would suggest to you that even if I paid 100% to commission an Italian (TV producer, artist, sculptor, composer, author...it matters not) to produce something, it doesn't and should become "British" by dint of the funding, so I don't accept that "following the money" is ever a reasonable way to proceed. On your last point, I believe the truth is that it was going to be produced anyway, but the extra PBS funding enabled the production to be more 'lavish', in return for which some extra American references were built into the storyline. MapReader (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

On your second point, it definitely does – hypothetically, if the UK put up 100% of the funding for a show (as per WP:RS) that ends up being entirely produced and filmed in Canada, it is still considered a "UK-production". Similarly, if the UK puts up 50% and France puts up 50% for a show that is ultimately filmed in Canada, it's a UK-French co-production. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Is that just your opinion, or contained within WP policy anywhere? The same logic would make Titian's late paintings Spanish, rather than Italian, since the King of Spain paid for them; good luck with that one! Nevertheless since PBS's financial contribution to Downton is in the region of 10-15% the point doesn't seem to help us here?MapReader (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Interview with Ms Eaton (exec. producer, PBS/Masterpiece), 2016: "We're not the final word because we're not the most money. The broadcaster, the BBC or ITV, usually has the final word because they put the most money in. They are either made in-house at the BBC or ITV, or they're made by independent companies and we license them stateside" MapReader (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: The two sentences at the end of the first paragraph of the relevant section of the MoS (from "If a..." onwards) should become a separate paragraph and be replaced with:

"A series's nationality, if singularly defined, should be referenced within the article by reliable sources, and identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular or cannot be supported by appropriate citation, omit the information from the introductory sentence and cover the different national interests later, where these can be reliably referenced. Editors should be careful not to infer the nationality of a series or production entity where such information is not verifiable by citation from a reliable source." MapReader (talk) 05:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Proposed MoS change: Nationality MapReader (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Repacking

I saw on a web site that a TV station is moving its digital channel. This is happening a lot, according to that site. I was watching a TV station which announced that today is the day to rescan. The process is (sort of) explained at Spectrum reallocation#Repacking (someone did improve that article, which I contributed a lot of content to, but it might need further improvement). There should probably be a standard way of adding these changes to TV stations' articles. What I did on WCSC-TV could probably be improved on.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Featured Article review

I have nominated KaDee Strickland for a Wikipedia:Featured article review/KaDee Strickland/archive1 as the article has not been properly updated since its promotion as a featured article back in 2005. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Need help finding sources for Portable hole

I've been working on Portable hole. When I started, it was almost entirely unsourced WP:OR. I've made some progress finding sources, but not as much as I'd like. Many entries remain unsourced, and many of the sources I've added are, admittedly, not reliable. There's no doubt that this is a notable concept, having been used in film, cartoons, and literature by many authors. But, good sources are hard to find. I'd appreciate any help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

NCIS (season 15)

Could I get some other editors watching NCIS (season 15), please? I adjusted the colours[3] using my script, per the whole COLOR discussion, and had an editor (Jp113040) revert me[4] with the summary of "What do you think am I, stupid or something, you're not the boss of the colors, I AM, you understand me?! I told you, do not mess with my previous color!". This editor's been warned for non-compliant colours and OWN behaviour before, per their talk page. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 03:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee episode list

Would appreciate some input on an issue over at Talk:Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee#Netflix episode order. Quick summary: I was looking at this show on Netflix and went to check the article over here. While looking at the episode list I noticed that its not even close to what Netflix has. The previous 9 seasons were rearranged into 4 seasons (called "collections") and the episodes from the seasons have also been rearranged between those (and not in order). I'm trying to figure out if there is any technical solution to have two lists, as both lists cannot share the same tables, as there is no reader-friendly way of moving from entry to entry by order. --Gonnym (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Listing all the syndicated shows a station has carried, in each TV station article

Please see Talk:WUPV#RfC about content in the Programming section. This is probably something that should have a standardized approach rather than be argued article-by-article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Aired episodes template

Hey, all. I've added to the usage of {{Aired episodes}} with a new template I've made, {{Template parameter value}}. The latter template pulls the value of a specific parameter in a specific template in a specific article, which, for television articles, removes the requirement of the "onlyinclude" tags in the parent article and the |num={{:Showname}} in the "aired episodes" template.

For example, here and here show the updated usages. You can remove the "onlyinclude" tags and the |num= parameter, and just add |showpage= instead. Not to worry though, the regular |num= still works! It's only an addition. Just an update I thought I'd share, might make life easier for television editors. -- Alex^TW 16:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Television ratings graph - Request for help from the project's template editors

In January 2018, i submitted some suggestions in the template's talk page. They concern the format of the data table, the citation style and the appearance of the graph (a fixed distance between the bars). Five months later, no changes have been made, so i would like to once again draw your attention to it. -- Radiphus 09:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split?. -- Alex^TW 05:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

When should the list of episodes be split off into a separate article?

Greetings and felicitations. If an American show on broadcast television reaches a second season (which generally means a count of more than 13 episodes, if not 22), is that the time to split off the episodes into a separate article? If this question has already been addressed, where can I find that answer—in the MOS? Or somewhere else?

(I originally asked the question here.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Standard procedure is to split when there are known, reliably sourced season two episodes, yes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. ^_^ Is there someplace that that is written down? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. There have been multiple discussions upon this recently, and the "two seasons" "standard procedure" was disagreed upon. I'll see if I can find the discussions and the resultant summary of it. -- Alex^TW 06:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The summation can be found at User:Bignole/Episode page. Two seasons is no longer the standard procedure; to answer your question, there was no place that it was written down. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 06:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A split should happen based on size (WP:SIZESPLIT) – which would likely correspond to number of episodes & size of episodes summaries (i.e. prose length) – not "number of seasons". IOW, for example, a show that has 8-episode seasons should not have a LoE "split" after a second season begins to air. On the other hand, a hypothetical TV series that has 80-episode seasons (e.g. Violetta (TV series)) might actually qualify for a split before season #1 ends!... Bottom line: There's no hard and fast "rule" here, because different TV series have TV seasons (and episodes summaries) of different lengths, so the best guideline/benchmark is to go off WP:SIZESPLIT and editor consensus... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A completely different angle: while there is a point to split on size (for example, The Walking Dead (TV series) without any episode descriptions is long enough because of the attention to the show, so season splits are needed), when the size is not a concern, the split should only happen if there is more than just primary information about that season, specifically, that can be broken out from the overall show without either article suffering for it. This information should be related to production and reception (and more than just Neilsen ratings). The production section should be information that is wholly about that season and would feel like a reasonably complete section; if the only production note to be added was "so-and-so was added to the cast", that's not sufficient. --Masem (t) 13:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this was more related to a separate list-of-episodes page, but for the topic of season pages, I completely agree with you. There's too many season articles that contain just the lead/infobox, cast and episode table, and there's editors that believe this is sufficient. It's not. -- Alex^TW 14:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that flagrant examples of this get the {{Merge}} tag. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but that's all good advice on when to split off a separate "season" article – the original question was about when to split off the LoE article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Per the discussion, ALL splitting was to be dictated based on the size of the article being split and not the number of seasons that were airing. That's what is on my sandbox that we never drafted a streamline version for. Thus, we are supposed to look at readable prose (all pages have a spot to check that) and separate when they reach the limit where that is suggested. That means, you could inevitably have some pages that are split early (because there's lots of coverage on the overall series and thus the main page has reached that size requirement) or some pages that have lots of seasons because they are more obscure and don't have a lot of coverage. The difference is that we're not a substitute for watching a show and historically people have separated out pages based on the "length" (mean that literally, not based on actual size) because of episode tables. This was a justification to have pages devoted mostly to episode summaries, which we cannot have as we're not a TV Guide either.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If the contributors of this discussion are interested, there is a very similar discussion going on at Talk:List of Raven's Home episodes#Should this article have been split? about the validity of splitting very early, and whether they should be merged again, or left as-is. -- Alex^TW 05:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

FLRC notification

I have nominated List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Precedent for List of longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV

Hi all, is there any article precedent for the existence of List of longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV? I have kind of a problem with the user who created it--they've fabricated a lot of citation titles so that they say things like "Sasural Simar Ka' completes 2,000 episodes, thus, becoming second longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV till date" when in fact the reference titles say something much different, ex: "'Sasural Simar Ka' Completes 2,000 Episodes".

The user is also adding this content to articles, ostensibly to make these series sound more important (?). Arbitrary and very specific records/milestones like "seventh longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV and second longest-running Indian television series of Colors TV which is on air" just reads as a form of WP:PUFFERY to me. I mean, there are a lot of qualifiers there, like are there other series that aren't Indian that have run longer on Colors TV? Anyway, I appreciate a contrary opinion if anybody has one. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Content should be merged into List of longest-running Indian television series, if applicable. (And, FTR, I don't particularly care for the format of List of longest-running Indian television series either – those should be organized by either years or seasons airing, not by "number of episodes"...) There is indeed no precedent for "longest-running TV series, by network" as separate articles – that kind of detail should either be covered at the Colors TV itself, or as List of television programs broadcast by Colors TV (which doesn't exist). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with IJBall. Merge to longest-running Indian series -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, guys. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Highlander: The Raven episodes

Single-season TV series are not supposed to have stand-alone "List of episodes" articles. Yet this one is a WP:FL. (It probably shouldn't be, but that's a separate issue...) So, merge the LoE back to Highlander: The Raven anyway? Or leave it be?... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Because of its FL status (which also baffles me), this should be asked Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates. Otherwise, it definitely should be merged back into the smallish HTR page. — Wyliepedia @ 00:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me!... Dang! I've never gone through this process. I'll think it over, and maybe think about tackling delisting it when I have more time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion Regarding the Debate Over the Possible Influence of the 2016 US Presidential Election on The Handmaid's Tale television series

Thought I'd see if any editors over here would like to help resolve this discussion happening over at the talk page for The Handmaid's Tale here: Talk:The Handmaid's Tale (TV series)#References to Trump and Pence need to be deleted. A few days ago an editor removed this section from the article's Reception section:

There was much debate on whether parallels could be drawn between the series (and by extension, the book it is based on) and American society following Donald Trump and Mike Pence's elections as President and Vice President of the United States, respectively. A comparison has also been made to the Salafi/Wahabbi extremism of ISIL, under which enslaved women of religious minorities are passed around and utilized as sex objects and vessels to bear new jihadis.

I reverted the user's deletion (which their edit summary explained was done in the interest in making the article "neutral) due to the fact that the sentence was adequately cited and seemed to posses no open political bias in its current composition. Hoping to have this conflict end soon as I try to avoid getting into political discussions here on Wikipedia. Hope to see some input over there! – BoogerD (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

American politics? – No thanks! I'll be steering well clear of this!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I should have avoided it too. I'm sorry I didn't. However, the edit summary showing up in my watchlist appeared to be politically-motivated vandalism and so I reverted an edit and got caught up in all of this. Oh well. – BoogerD (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This should definitely be covered at the article, and I personally would consider the act of removing it as vandalism given a user is putting their political views ahead of being neutral and covering noteworthy commentary. Just make sure it is well sourced and weighted appropriately. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Adamstom.97: mind chiming in over at the article's talk page? – BoogerD (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:US

MOS:US states that the abbreviation style of U.S. is deprecated, and that we should be using US (no full stops). It does also says to "retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it". Should we change it to US in {{Episode table}} for the viewers parameter? Thoughts? It would match up with UK. -- Alex^TW 14:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No – "U.S." is correct usage in North America. There's a background to that MOS:U.S. change which I won't bore people with, but it was made after an RfC was held in which there was "no consensus" to deprecate "U.S." IOW, the change basically ignored the RfC result. The MOS should not be used to "force" conventions for which there is not truly widespread consensus among all editors. Bottom line – WP:ENGVAR exists for a reason, and trying to impose "US" over "U.S." is just one of those things that promotes needless conflict among editors. Best to leave it be... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Consistency would be nice, and periods nowadays are pretty much phased out of abbreviations and acronyms. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm of the same view. Plus my reading of the MoS is that consistency within articles is the objective, so where other international abbreviations (UK, EU, UN etc.) are present, US is the desired format. It's a short step from there to using US consistently in any event. MapReader (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Cautious oppose: As long as the MOS states "retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it" I suggest we retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. CapnZapp (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: IJBall's arguments doesn't persuade me, however. Either "U.S." is correct usage in North America, in which case I expect our MOS to reflect that. Or the opinion is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Furthermore, we can't have "backgrounds" to MOS edits influence our reading of said MOS. The MOS is exactly there to force conventions, it's its whole purpose... Regards CapnZapp (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, in IJBall's defense, WP:MOS is a guideline. That means it's a general best practice to follow, but it's not something that should be followed 100% of the time. Common sense comes into play in these cases. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The LA 2028 Olympic Games site carries all the documents for the Los Angeles bid, which were pitched at an international audience. These seem quite happy to use US throughout. As does CNN, on the international website that I can access. So for international sites at least, US appears reasonably common. MapReader (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Amaury, but then the originator of this proposal shouldn't base his proposal on it either. Either it is more or less merely an opinion piece, and any change proposal should stand on its own without it, or it presents a significant argument in favor of the proposal, in which case I believe we should follow what it says. Feel free to withdraw my cautious oppose if you do agree on the former. Regards CapnZapp (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make any solid proposal, I just wanted to see what other opinions were. However, my opinion is that guidelines should match up, so if one states that US is the preferred version, then others should as well. Consistency is definitely appreciated in articles - what harm does using US do? -- Alex^TW 05:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be changed. MOS:US also says "use US in an article with other country abbreviations, and especially avoid constructions like the U.S. and the UK" which would be a fairly common occurance in television articles, such as "...airs on NBC in the U.S. and BBC in the UK." I think consistency is best here, both across Wikipedia articles and between US, UK, UAE, etc. in television-related articles -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm heartily in favour of "US", for a variety of reasons: consistency with other country abbreviations, consistency with MOS in general (I really don't understand how a disputed change on such a highly trafficked guideline could stand for months if it didn't reflect some kind of consensus), consistency with MOS:ABBR, etc. Language evolves: maybe "U.S." used to predominate, but if, as per MOS:US, the form with periods is deprecated (and has been for years) in multiple American style guides (and that does seem to reflect a trend with dumping periods in acronyms more generally) including some big ones like the Chicago Manual of Style, then I don't see what the objection is to us following that trend. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

With a few opposing voices, I'd say that there's a pretty solid agreement from the contributing editors to change usages to US, especially for consistency with similar usages (UK, EU, UN, etc.), as well as consistency with outside Methods of Style. I would, of course, be interested in hearing any further opinions. -- Alex^TW 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Would/should this change affect Wikipedia:NCTV? The disambiguation is currently using (U.S. TV series). --Gonnym (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, I was more thinking of usage inside the articles, but yes, that would definitely be something that needs to be considered if the guidelines were updated. -- Alex^TW 09:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I really have no horse in this race but if MOS:US states that the abbreviation style of U.S. is deprecated and to make the naming consistent with other usages (EU, UK, etc.) I see no reason not to support this change. Gonnym (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I'll run AWB on usages of {{Episode table}}, write up a new sentence for the MoS, and ask whereabouts we would request a large list of article renames. -- Alex^TW 02:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Gosh. What a lovely club y'all have. Was the invitation to the party announced? Well, be that as it may ... for posterity:

2. In American English, however, it is common to use a full stop/period as an alternative style for certain abbreviations, in particular:
USA or U.S.A.
US or U.S. Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Chicago style is USA (without periods), but we also accept both US and U.S. Other authoritative style manuals and dictionaries vary in their recommendations. Please see CMOS 10.4 and 10.33 for guidelines and discussion. The Chicago Manual of Sylte Online. The Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition, 2017.

Had you sent an invitation other Wikipedians might have brought party favors to the voting booth. Cheers! Pyxis Solitary 20:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Why? The issue concerned only television articles, hence only the Television WikiProject was required. It may still be "acceptable", but the agreement between the majority of editors here can be clearly seen for the preference of US; no objection was raised to the usage of AWB three days after the discussion either. Cheers! -- Alex^TW 21:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Eight editors decide how a Wikipedia-wide guideline is going to change? You don't see why you should open a discussion that intends to make changes for TV articles to more than the editors who like to hang out in this project page? SMH. Pyxis Solitary 22:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't override a guideline which explicitly states retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. There was no pressing need for this change. You can't pose a question, yourself determine the consensus, and then proceed to change 2760 articles in 4.5 hours. Also, using the AWB tool in this way goes against WP:AWBRULES #2 and #3 - this is clearly controversial and you are not applying the guideline properly, which states to retain usage. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I get so weary of non-Americans forcing British English usage and construction on U.S. articles. There is no reason for Alex's rapid-fire changes. Netoholic does an excellent job of articulating the arguments against these high-handed changes, with which I fully concur. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Alex is not even the main driver on that – let's just say it's the editor who's been most pushing the "revised" MOS:US (which, again, basically ignored an immediately preceding RfC that showed "no consensus" to deprecate use of "U.S.") and MOS:JR – definitely a "backdoor" attempt to force "Commonwealth English" style over everyone despite WP:ENGVAR (which exists for very important reasons...), IM(cynical)O. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you try to turn every issue into some sort of international contest? As it happens I agree that the tv project isn't the place to have this debate; there has been a discussion on the MOS pages around punctuation within abbreviations going on for some time, prompted by an editor who is American and who cites the Chicago manual and various modern American usage. U.S. with punctuation clearly remains the standard for titles of entities, but within journalistic and other reputable writing there is a slow evolution toward aligning the style used for US with that accepted as the norm for other abbreviations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, IOC, EU, etc. MapReader (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

One American "style guide" is not, and should not be, "definitive" on the question. And I don't see the same "evolution" that you claim – I see American news outlets often using "US" in article titles (likely for brevity), and then following that up by using "U.S" often in the article prose text. IOW, the American usage on the topic is quite mixed, and all over the place. (Which is why, as per WP:COMMONALITY, "United States" should just be spelled out in article prose, etc. as much as possible...) But, as you say, WP:TV is not the place to have this discussion... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As you say, American usage is varied. My point was that Drmargi's attempt cast this as some sort of plot by "non-Americans" is both unhelpful and unconstructive, and also wholly inaccurate, as she would see if she followed the wider debate. MapReader (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• FYI re "WT:TV#MOS:US" reason given in Summary of articles affected: The consequence of this non-RfC discussion and the action taken by Alex has resulted in the revoking of his AWB rights. For further information see: Removal of AWB Access request. Pyxis Solitary 04:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC); edited 04:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC) – Incident was archived, substituted initial link with archive link.

Draft notice

As it may be relevant to this WikiProject, this is a notice that I've created the template {{Draft notice}} for ease of access in alerting user and article talk pages of drafts. -- Alex^TW 08:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: You can't use this on redirects, can you? I've been looking for something like this that can let editors who go directly to redirects know there is a draft article, in the same way that going to an empty article like Blue's Clues (2018 TV series) tells you that there's a draft article in Draftspace... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Something like you suggested would so incredibly useful. I have often thought the same thing. It would be amazing if some intrepid editor created a template that could be used like that. – BoogerD (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: I have thought about suggesting this in WP:VPT – I just have never gotten around to it/found the time... But I suspect it requires a highly "technical" solution, something that'll probably require one of those WP:Phab tickets... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely possible as a template, as templates can be used in a redirect (as long as it's after the redirect itself). {{R with possibilities}}, for example. Perhaps {{R with draft}}, that just states "There is a draft for this article at DRAFT"; that's easily something I can write up. -- Alex^TW 22:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. It would be something similar to this {{Film draft edit notice}}. - Brojam (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit different to what I had in mind, but that works just as well. Examples of that can be seen at Gambit (2019 film) and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them 3. -- Alex^TW 22:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ya, it doesn't need to be so big with a huge warning sign. You could easily copy the one at Blue's Clues (2018 TV series) using {{editnotice}}. - Brojam (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be AWESOME!! I have no specific ideas on the particulars, so feel free to go with Brojam's suggestion. I definitely would maybe just copy the exact text used at "empty" articles like Blue's Clues (2018 TV series) and make it similar to {{Film draft edit notice}}. BTW, IMO bigger font is probably better (though {{Film draft edit notice}}'s font may be too big!). P.S. It's better if this new template is "generic" – i.e. it should be usable at any type of redirect, not just ones for TV series (or films). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Update, I started creating the template at {{Draft at}}, but it turns out, it already exists at {{There is a draft for this article}}. Only requirement is that "Draft:" isn't automatically added. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! I may put in a WP:RM for {{There is a draft for this article}} as that is an awfully "wordy" title... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No problems. A redirect could be created for it as an acronym; {{TIADFTA}}? If not, I'd support an RM. -- Alex^TW 13:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done – WP:RM opened at the Talk page for {{There is a draft for this article}}. I liked Alex's {{Draft at}} title, so I've proposed it be moved there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:At the Movies (1982–90 TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:At the Movies (1982–90 TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Calendar (American TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Calendar (American TV series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Addams Family (1973 animated series)#Requested move 14 July 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Addams Family (1973 animated series)#Requested move 14 July 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Television articles with incorrect naming style

Three articles on which I have worked have had the "Television articles with incorrect naming style" category added. I had not heard of that category before, and when I went to the page with that heading, I found no explanation on it or on its talk page.

What constitutes incorrect naming style for a TV show? Eddie Blick (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this is a maintenance category not viewable to readers. I went through TV categories and checked the disambiguation with the naming style and those that used an incorrect style were added to the category, with that said, there could always be mistakes. The names were not changed and a move discussion was not created. These were just a first pass to assess this issue. Also, you could always ask the person who added them, which is me. --Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Actually, thanks for doing that! Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style looks like it'll be extremely useful. I'll start going through that today, and moving blatantly incorrectly disambiguated articles. Do, note, however, that some of these, like The Edge (Fox TV series), have gone through multiple previous WP:RMs are unlikely to be moved to "correct" titles due to resistance from some editors. But, others, like The Encounter (2016 series), will be easy to boldly "fix". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, it's arguable that Aladdin (animated TV series) is "incorrectly named". I think that was "boldly" removed from NCTV as a viable option by Netoholic, presumably because it's a "genre", but "animation" isn't a "genre" – it's a format. Add: Yeah, see this – even Netoholic didn't support moving that, so I'm going to remove Aladdin (animated TV series) from the list (as per Mr. Bean (animated TV series))... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

When looking at Aladdin (animated TV series) I didn't understand why its not at Aladdin (U.S. TV series). I read now the discussion you linked and I still don't see a valid reason for an exception. Should The Jungle Book (1967 film) now become The Jungle Book (animated film) since there is a new Disney live action film? I won't start a RM on this, but I just think the exception given was not really needed. --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue for a formal WP:RM on The Addams Family (1973 animated series) and The Addams Family (1992 animated series) – it looks like "animated" is unnecessary disambiguation here, and The Addams Family (1973 TV series) and The Addams Family (1992 TV series) should be sufficient disambiguation from The Addams Family (1964 TV series). I may open up an WP:RM myself on these two today, after the soccer... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I thought it should move to also. --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Teblick: Please see WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

IJBall Thanks for pointing me to that page. I didn't know about it. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, starting to tackle some of these, and some will get a {{Please see}} followup here (and at WT:NCTV) (e.g. see below). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: I think I've gone through and moved/corrected most of the "low-hanging fruit" in the category through the letter "L", opening formal WP:RMs in those cases where I thought it was advisable. I'll try to go through the bottom of the alphabet in the category within the next 24 hours... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I saw, great job! I've started going over the UK now (Category:1969 British television programme debuts is where I stopped atm), so I've added a few in. BTW, if anyone knows of a better category to go through let me know. --Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The Face to Face#Television entries are a mess – they should all be at "TV program" (except the game show), not "TV series", for one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Actors in plot summaries

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Proposed MoS change: actors' names (not) in plot sections

Gist: MOS:FILM and MOS:TV are in conflict about whether to give actors' names in plot summaries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Commented over there. Note that I am on record (as several of us are) in opposing the current MOS:TV formulation on this question – it definitely doesn't have the kind of "overwhelming consensus" required for something that is in a MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Vikings (TV documentary series)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Vikings (TV documentary series). Already the subject of multiple WP:RMs involving several WP:TV "regulars", I'd like some more opinions on this one before trying to tackle it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)}