Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Episode list without Episode table

I thought I'd post the link for User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes here - this is a list of all articles that use {{Episode list}} but not {{Episode table}}; i.e. they still use the old raw wikicode tables for their episode table headers. If anyone wants to have a go at battling it, go for it. -- Alex^TW 04:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool. As you may already know, I'm big on converting these to {{Episode table}} when I come across them. So a listing will help with this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also Category:Infobox television season articles that use the season name parameter, for articles that use {{Infobox television season}}, that still use the season_name parameter, instead of the granularity edits that were implemented ages ago where only the season number and show name are required. -- Alex^TW 04:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Conversion of Project Blue Book (TV series) into article for upcoming History drama

As posted on the show's talk page yesterday, a trailer was released by History for an upcoming drama produced by Robert Zemeckis with this very title.. With this in mind, I believe a TV series that actually has said title deserves the page more than a show that uses it as an alternate title, so I'm requesting the page be repurposed to reflect as such. I was advised to solicit advice here, probably for proper approval--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 14:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I have already commented over there that the redirect should probably be converted into an article on the upcoming series, but that a hatnote will also be necessary to point back to Project U.F.O., as Project Blue Book was an alternate title for the latter TV series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Which I completely agreed with, in fact was how I envisioned it would be--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Talk:The Futon Critic#TFC does not provide links to original sources

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Futon Critic#TFC does not provide links to original sources. An editor is claiming that The Futon Critic cannot(? or should not?) be used as a Reliable source under WP:TV (e.g. WP:TVFAQ). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Series and season articles using non MOS "infobox" templates

I came across an issue with several pseudo infoboxs templates and a sidebar template.

The pseudo infoboxs are Template:Infobox reality show candidates, Template:Big Brother housemates and Template:Big Brother endgame which are used in The Apprentice UK articles (example: The Apprentice (UK series ten)), Big Brother articles (example: Big Brother 7 (U.S.)) and probably others. These templates auto-hide the reality participants, their entry/exit date and color-coded and their end result. A few issues with this.

1. Is this not against MOS:DONTHIDE?
2. Having these infoboxes means that following MOS:TV#Infobox and using Template:Infobox television season will make the page look bad.
3. In addition, consistency is also an issue here. While the The Apprentice (UK series ten) uses Template:Infobox reality show candidates, The Apprentice (U.S. season 10) uses Template:Infobox television season/custom.

For Template:Big Brother sidebar which is used in Big Brother (U.S. TV series), Big Brother (UK TV series) and other articles there are other issues.

1. Sidebars are not viewable on mobile screens - this template included.
2. A lot of the information in the sidebar is duplicated in the navigation bar at the bottom (seasons, season houseguest list, winner links, other participants links, other related shows).
3. For some reason, it has the information for the whole franchise listed there.
4. Similar to the previous templates, is this not against MOS:DONTHIDE?
5. Similar to the previous templates, having this sidebar also means that following MOS:TV#Infobox and using Template:Infobox television will make the page look bad.
6. Similar to the previous templates, consistency is also an issue here. While Big Brother (U.S. TV series) uses Template:Big Brother sidebar, Big Brother México uses Template:Infobox television and Big Brother (Dutch TV series) uses custom code inside the article itself.

In addition, I remember a discussion (which I couldn't find) about pairs of param names and values. These templates don't use that coding style. Does this matter?

So in summary I'm asking. A. Is this even an issue? and B. If it is, how do we handle this? --Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Any input on this from someone? --Gonnym (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

My preference would be that all series articles use the actual series infobox, all season articles use the actual season infobox, etc. unless there is a very special case. That being said, this isn't such a major concern for me that I would go around fixing it. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Titles, Ranks, and Honorifics in "Cast and character" sections and film/television articles

I have had discussions with editors in the past over the use of titles (like Dr.), ranks (like Captain or Commander), and honors (like PhD) in the "Cast and characters" section of television series articles. Previously, I had been led to believe that they were to be used in situations involving fictional characters. These editors cited pages such as various Star Trek articles to back up that claim. However, I recently had an anonymous editor (142.160.89.97) cite MOS:POSTNOM and MOS:DOCTOR in order to justify the removal of these titles/honors from the "Cast and characters" and episode summary sections of the article Who Is America?. I'm hoping to receive some clarity from some knowledgeable editor here? Do those Manual of Style rules apply to fictional characters? Do numerous pages need to be changed to comply? – BoogerD (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: notice that those two MOS's apply to biographies, not fictional characters – as such, I don't consider them binding on the latter... However, this gets back to the importance of "roles as credited", as per WP:TVCAST, WP:FILMCAST, and WP:FILMOGRAPHY – if a title, like "Det." or "Dr." is actually included in the crediting for the character, then it should be included, as per the cited guidelines above. If, however, they aren't included in the crediting, then they should be left out. The "pickle" is what to do in regards to this for main cast/characters, as those characters' names aren't usually explicitly credited. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: I believe I wrote "in line with MOS:POSTNOM and MOS:DOCTOR". I am aware that they are part of MOS:BIO – and nowhere did I suggest otherwise – but of course the justification for the guideline in biographies applies equally here. Given the guidelines cited by IJBall concerning cast lists, I have left those be for the time being, but they are clear that their scope is solely cast lists. There's no justification (presented here or otherwise) to be including post-nominal letters after every occurrence of a character's name throughout the article. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Even if they are intended for real-life people, they are still useful for fictional people as well. The biggest problem for me with including titles in cast lists is that they often change over the course of a TV show. It is easier to say Smith: an agent who later becomes the director rather than getting all muddled up with what should take precedence. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

If the crediting changes, you deal with it then. But, if over the course of a show, a recurring character is credited as "Agent Smith", then that's how we should list it – "names as per credits" is in there for a reason, to prevent editors from second-guessing the "correct" name. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting that in Who Is America?, the characters names (with titles and honors) appear as such in the end credits and on-screen during the episodes. – BoogerD (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see that SMcCandlish discussed a similar issue just a couple years ago, so perhaps he could weigh in here. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would go by common name for how the characters are credited for the series as with List of Stargate SG-1 characters which has a number of title changes for its main characters, rather than the over-specific character titles given in List of JAG characters. If their character name is typically associated with the title, then consider something like List of Reno 911! characters or apply it to the specific season. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As it relates to List of Stargate SG-1 characters, shouldn't bold not be used in the article? Per MOS:BOLD and MOS:TVCAST. – BoogerD (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it could also be for redirect names for characters like with MOS:BOLD: "This is also done, at the first occurrence in running text, of a term that is redirected to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not." It's not required though as with Characters of Supernatural. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. When a term is wikilinked in an article to the article itself, than it appears in bold. That much I get, as I've seen it before. However, in this specific article each instance of bolded text has been purposefully put in there. – BoogerD (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I've been of two minds on this. These days, I'm okay with introducing characters with their titles, if they're commonly used in the actual work. E.g., if the plot states Johnson has a PhD, but people in the work just call her "Janet Johnson" (or "Janet" or "Johnson"), don't list her as "Dr. Janet Johnson, PhD". If they're typically calling her "Dr. Johnson", then include the "Dr.", on first occurrence, but don't keep repeating it over and over again. "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Ms.", etc., should not be used unless it's the only way the character is identified in the work. A side point: stop over-capitalizing non-names. If someone is credited as "3rd biker in bar", give it lower-case, don't upper-case it as "3rd Biker In Bar" to mimic the stylization applied in the credits. WP isn't written following the Paramount Pictures Stylebook or whatever. And WP doesn't care if IMDb likes to over-capitalize descriptive terms; we don't follow their stylebook either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I think in the cast lists themselves, we should generally avoid titles as per the biography guidance/policies as people have different ideas of which titles "count" and which people ought to have them listed (I just stripped a bunch from a show where the male medical doctors were listed as "Dr. <so and so>" but the female medical doctor and the guy with the PhD were not afforded the honour)—unless that character is simply constantly and consistently referred to by that title to the point where it's functioning as a (common) name (usually as a replacement for their first name, which often isn't known or is mentioned in passing). So if John Smith is a detective, but is consistently called "Smith", list him as "John Smith, a detective". But if he's referred to as "Detective Smith" throughout, sure, list him as "Detective John Smith" or, probably better, "Detective Smith".

So I would support Linden Ashby being listed as "Sheriff Stilinski" in Teen Wolf because he is nearly always called either that or just his last name, even though we know his first name is "Noah." But on The 100, I would support removing "Dr." from Paige Turco's Abigail "Abby" Griffin because even though her being a doctor is often important to the plot, she is nearly always called Abby, not Dr. Griffin or Dr. Abby or Dr. anything (although I suppose that might end up being somewhat gendered, since often we emphasize men's titles and not women's). This is somewhat related to how we list Dylan O'Brien as "Stiles Stilinski" in Teen Wolf even though we (eventually) are told his actual first name. Listing titles based on how a character is credited is problematic because in TV these days, as IJBall points out, main cast roles are generally not listed. I would rather just default to not including them as part of the character's name (listing their occupation/title/ranks in their description/blurb is fine if they are notable/relevant). If we step back and say "this is the actor's name and this is name of the character they play", then a person's name does not include their titles/honorifics/etc. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Animated tv series

Can anyone help with Draft:Longest running animated tv showFanoflionking 14:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Star Parivaar Awards

Hi there, your comments are respectfully requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Request for Comment: Star Parivaar Awards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note that this is largely a WikiProject Television issue surrounding in-house awards. The discussion is only being held in ICTF space because of the number of editors there interested in Indian entertainment, but your Television-ly feedback would be appreciated. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Template for Amazon Video Original Programming

Looking for a little input here from the Wikiproject:Television community. I'm trying to avoid engaging in an edit war over the current state of Template:Amazon Video original series. Previously, the streaming service had been split up into three templates: a main one featuring "Amazon Original" programming produced by Amazon Studios, a foreign language one consisting primarily of foreign series acquired by Amazon and listed as "Amazon Exclusives" rather than "Amazon Originals", and a template for children's programming. In the last two months a deletion discussion occurred and the foreign language template was deleted. Today, the information in that template was merged into the main template with some disagreement over how best to accommodate it. Looking for the input of other editors to help figure out what would make the most sense both aesthetically, functionally, and logically. Thanks all, BoogerD (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think all channel/network TV shows navigation templates should be deleted. The entries have no real connection to each other, other than being made or shown on the same channel (Amazon in this case) and they just end up being a list full of unrelated clutter such as Template:PBS Kids shows or useless ones such as these Template:DC Universe programming. A category would be the best place for these kind of lists. But that's just my opinion on these navigation templates. --Gonnym (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The template is not so big to need the collapsible menus. It only makes it cumbersome to use and doesn't solve anything. They should be removed. Flordeneu (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A more practical question re Emmy awards

This is less about any editing dispute and more for someone that has better information. I'm trying to see if there is a fundamental difference between the normal Primetime Emmy awards, and the Primetime Creative Arts Emmy awards. The case in point is that for Black Mirror, it won Outstanding Television Movie last year, and nominated for the same this year, but the way the Emmys are scheduling the awards, the Outstanding Television Movie is being presented outside the normal Primetime ceremony , and instead as part of the Creative Arts two-day event. As such, on our accolades table, it looks very weird to see it as a normal Primetime Emmy when it won, and a Creative Arts for this year's nomination.

We technically have the official designation between Primetime and Creative Emmy for this year here, but that seems to be read that all awards are fundamentally equal, and it's just their fluidity between the nights of scheduling that some get put to the Creative Arts ceremonies. I can't seem to find a hard list that affirmed that any category is always a Primetime or a Creative Arts award. --Masem 23:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a hard list, the idea is that the "sexier" awards like Best Show, Actor and Actress, etc. make the broadcast, and the myriad others in craft categories like Casting in a Reality Program fall into the Creative Arts ceremonies. As you probably know, historically it was mostly the same from year to year, it's a relatively recent development that certain awards go back and forth (this happens with Daytime Emmys too), mostly because there are more categories than ever before and the timing and rundown of actual content in each broadcast varies from year to year. I think 70th Primetime Emmy Awards and 70th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards are appropriate as separate articles because of the sheer number of awards, not necessarily because they were awarded on different days. So I would argue that awards tables like those for Black Mirror might combine the regular and Creative Arts awards in a single table to avoid such confusion. There are currently 11 domestic Emmy awards listed there, which would look fine as a single table.— TAnthony^Talk 02:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

That's basically what I'm trying to make sure, that they all are called Emmys, and only the Primetime/Creative Arts is a matter of convenience rather than "importance". Or more importantly, the Emmy committee doesn't consider the Creative Arts any less of an Emmy award than the Primetime, only that they get more viewers with the "sexier" ones. --Masem (t) 02:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Mark-Francis Vandelli ‎and Louise Thompson (TV personality) into Made in Chelsea

Hello everyone, I've just proposed a merge of Mark-Francis Vandelli ‎and Louise Thompson (TV personality) into Made in Chelsea. The discussion can be found at Talk:Made in Chelsea#Merger proposal. Many thanks. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Middle names in Cast and characters sections

Hello All,

I'd like to point all whom might possibly be interested to a discussion happening over at the talk page for the new Netflix comedy series All About the Washingtons here: Talk:All About the Washingtons. Myself and three other editors are engaged in a debate over the relevance of including the full of name of characters when mentioned in dialogue rather than in the credits of the series in question. I don't feel compelled to transcribe the contents of this rather long and ongoing discussion but would encourage others interested in the subject to give it a read and consider contributing to the conversation. – BoogerD (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others

Articles which may be of interest to members of this project—Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others—have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 14:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Anna Anka, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

World of Dance (season 2) - some help please

Kia ora, I'm a newbie when it comes to editing TV shows but found myself editing World of Dance (season 2) after reading it and finding some issues with grammar. Turns out that an IP editor from Germany created the article or at least wrote a lot of it and is now getting frustrated with me, so I would appreciate some others stepping in to maybe help? I could be wrong, but from what I've edited and been reverted on, it appears to be s lot of puff/trivia that isn't required in the article and is actually at the moment unsourced. It feels more like a dance Wiki article when I started than a Wikipedia article. I don't want to get into an edit war and now wonder if maybe I was wrong but feel even compared to World of Dance (season 1) it's not correct. Any advice or help would be appreciated. NZFC^(talk) 17:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You're talking right up my alley – most of the reality TV show articles contain WAY too much trivial, basically WP:INUNIVERSE "results" nonsense that absolutely violates and murders WP:INDISCRIMINATE in every way possible. This isn't a Wikia – this is not the kind of information we should be covering here. But I'm not sure anything can be done about it – to "push back" this kind of thing now would require a concerted many-editor "push" to roll-back this kind of trivial nonsense at a manifold of "reality TV" series articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There was a massive discussion that closed recently at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should the "In wrestling" section be removed from professional wrestling articles? that dealt with the removal of trivia from wrestling articles, which was even posted on reddit discussions to bring in the mass. I wonder if the reality crowd is as organized as they were. --Gonnym (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 16#Template:Japanese episode list

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 August 16#Template:Japanese episode list. The discussion is a proposal to merge {{Japanese episode list}}, {{S-Japanese episode list}} and {{S-Episode list}} into {{Episode list}}. -- Alex^TW 02:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Television ratings graph

Given the recent closing of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 July 6#Template:Television ratings graph as "no consensus", I think that we really ought to have a discussion about this template and usage. Its usage is continuously reverted against a multitude of articles, but we can't get a consensus to delete. Do we need to form guidelines on its use? -- Alex^TW 00:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree some guidelines would be useful. I didn't cast a vote in the TfD because I'm a little on the fence about it. I don't think it should be used widely, but I do think it is useful as a visual in some cases - I just don't know how I would even personally define "some cases" -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

A guideline should not be formulated unless there is overwhelming consensus on the issue. The TfD shows that won't happen, so I think trying to come up with any guideline is equally as pointless. People will just have to slog this out, article by article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There was no overwhelming consensus on the issue to delete, sure, but I think we could all get together to make some guidelines, ones that would come up with some rules on when its usage is not needed on an article, so that we don't have it everywhere. As I said, I've seen that its usage is continuously reverted in a multitude of articles, so writing up guidelines in the documentation would make it easier to handle, instead of article by article. -- Alex^TW 00:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying "don't have a discussion" – I'm saying the discussion is unlikely to be definitive, and anything that is not strongly conclusive should not be added to the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That's why I suggested documentation guidelines, not the MOS. The MOS wouldn't be needed for such a specific template. Or the FAQ page, that works too; I've been meaning to add our "standard practices" to that. -- Alex^TW 01:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. I could see establishing some framework for using these – like, "Don't use these for any TV series that has run less than 3 seasons or [x] number of episodes..." That would probably be a start. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. I've seen graphs for one- and two-season shows. But number of episodes definitely work better, due to the massive variation between some shows, that go from 3 episodes a season to 25+; same basis that we have for episode-list splitting. And personally, I would suggest they only be used when reliable sources actually comment directly upon the trend on viewers, so that we have something to back up its usage. For example, sources commenting on how Game of Thrones' continues to increase its viewers every season, breaking its own records, or sources commenting on a show that started off great but now has very minimal viewers. -- Alex^TW 05:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

They don't really belong on pages with pre existing ratings tables as they don't offer anything substantial to justify being used in this way. When a show is continuously losing viewers you can clearly see this on the ratings table, I don't think a visual aid is needed in that regard. Like you know, see how Designated Survivor started really high but continuously lost viewers. Esuka323 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are some things i believe we need to discuss:

1. Should the graph be used in a series' parent article or in the "list of episodes" page?
   Answer: I believe that the graph should be used in the "Ratings" section of a series' main article, accompanied with some text describing and explaining how the ratings have progressed over the course of the series. In order to avoid repeating data, the ratings tables should be moved to the LoE pages, where there is more space for exhaustive stats. I believe that the graph should not be used in season articles, where ratings tables should be created. If this isn't possible due to lack of information on shares and DVR ratings, season-specific graphs similar to the one used at Rick and Morty (season 3)#Ratings could be used instead.
2. Is it necessary to cite sources for the ratings? Even when the graph is being used in the LoE page, where the episode tables with the episodes' ratings figures are usually found?
   Answer: I don't think that citing sources would be necessary when the graph is being used in LoE and season articles, just like we are not using citations in the lead section and the infobox, which repeat information for which sources are given elsewhere in the article.
3. Is the current way the inline citations are being used (below the graph) the best we can do? Can we think of another way of citing sources, if you believe it's necessary?
   Answer: I believe it would be better to either bundle the citations in order to maintain text–source integrity (here's how that would appear to readers), or place the citations in a separate column inside the table, as i had previously suggested at Template talk:Television ratings graph.
4. In cases where a series/season's episodes ratings can't be found all together in a single page on the internet for us to cite it as our source of information (tvseriesfinale), how could we maintain a consistent citation style?
   Answer: As i said, i believe that citing sources for the graph in LoE pages would be redundant anyway, so i'll not focus on this case. However, if the graph is used in the main article, which i consider a more appropriate place for it, we need to make sure the stats are verifiable. In this case, we could add a footnote below the table directing people to the LoE page where they will be able to find the sources they are looking for, though some of you might think this is a WP:REFLOOP (i personally don't think that, but i can see why others might - what do you think?). Since bundling citations for individual episode ratings would be impractical, we might have to disallow the use of graphs in the main article of a series in cases where not all ratings of a series or season can be found in a single page, unless we can come up with another convenient and comprehensible citation style.
5. What should be the minimum number of episodes/seasons for a series to qualify?
   Answer: At least two seasons of a series should exist for a graph to be created. A graph shouldn't be created for a series with less than 20 episodes, regardless of the number of seasons. A graph can be created after the premiere of a season, only if the total number of episodes after its conclusion will be at least 20 episodes.
6. Should we decide on a minimum contrast ratio for the colors of two consecutive seasons?
   Answer: This is an issue for series overview tables as well. I believe the contrast ratio for the colors of two consecutive seasons should be at least 2.5. Currently, the background colors that have been selected for the first and second season of Westworld are  #2F4B59  and  #545C6F  respectively, with the contrast ratio at 1.381. Seeing how the color for the first season is dark, if we were to slightly increase the lightness of the second season's color, we could have  #2F4B59  again for the first season and  #9099AE  for the second one, with a contrast ratio of 3.237. Here is what the graph looked like before, and here is what it looks like after that change.
7. When can the table with the ratings numbers be omitted below the graph?
   Answer: Depends on the citation style that we will go with. If the references are not going to be placed inside the table, i would support removing it from the template completely, and instead direct the readers to the episode tables with a footnote for them to find individual episode ratings. I consider the purpose of this graph to be the display of the ratings trend of a series, and not to provide information that can be presented in other, more appropriate places.

That's all for now. I will probably return with more questions and hopefully some answers. - Radiphus 18:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC) Updated with answers. - Radiphus 09:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the graph should only be used on the list of episodes page when there's no ratings tables. Such as what has been done with Outlander. I would source the data for said tables but its really hard to get consistent DVR data for Starz shows for some reason. Esuka323 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the graph should never be used with {{Television season ratings}} and should not be in season articles. (To avoid stuff like this List of The 100 episodes#Ratings and Game of Thrones (season 7)#Ratings). So if a series has season articles or doesn't have season ratings tables in their LoE (like Outlander) then we can show the graph at the LoE. I also see no problem with having the graph at a series main article as well like Game of Thrones#Viewer numbers. Yes, for the sourcing since it would also be at the main series article. For the minimum seasons and episodes, I would go with This template can be used as a visual representation for ratings trends of multi-season programs but should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons and less than 40 total episodes. That episode count can be changed to whatever we agree on. I have no real pickness on the count, but I think it should be at least over 26-30 to warrant the need to display the data visually. For omitting the table below, for sure for any show with seasons over 18+ episodes. At that point, it's just a bunch of numbers. - Brojam (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, I'm sorry for not replying sooner I was hoping more people would join in the discussion. By the way the Game of Thrones example you gave, just wow. That's so ridiculous for anyone to put an entire series worth of ratings data on a season page and below a ratings table too. Just awful. I think there needs to be some kind of consensus to stop something like that happening but I don't know enough about Wikipedia policy to suggest anything sorry. Esuka323 (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the blanket removal of ratings tables from the template, as they are quite small and present the information in a different format than episode lists. Strong oppose any season requirement for using the template, as ratings are measured per episode and not per season; an episode requirement may be appropriate if and only if it is kept very low (certainly not 20, let alone 40). Modernponderer (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. If this is to be used at all, it should be only used once per series, as an overview (not on individual season articles), and it should be substituted and not created in template space. All existing templates should be substituted and deleted, and the merit of a graph should be discussed on an article by article basis. However, most of the time, I would suggest they are not needed. --woodensuperman 15:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I have bundled the citations below the graphs, so please let me know what you think about that. While doing that, i noticed that data provided by BARB for UK series (i.e {{Broadchurch ratings}}, {{Luther ratings}}, {{Spooks ratings}}) are accumulated over a period of 7 and in some cases 28 days, in contrast with Nielsen ratings data for US series which refer only to live plus same day viewership. Should we keep using the graph for UK series? If yes, i believe the heading above the graph should read "U.K. viewers per episode over seven days (millions)". - Radiphus 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Coming back to this, the most recent TFD was closed; the consensus is to list them at their individual pages directly, instead of creating template namespace graphs. This way, it should be easier to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. -- Alex^TW 15:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It's nice that some editors are making an effort to remove the graphs from the season pages and redirecting them to the main page for said graph. They never belonged on the season pages and certain editors were just placing them on any and every page that they could without consensus. That was the only issue I had with them personally(Well besides the random occasions when they are wrongly used). Esuka323 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need a graph on the list of The 100 episodes page? It's sat below five ratings tables and seems rather pointless to me. Esuka323 (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Basing major layout changes to a Featured List on the consensus of two editors.

This discussion regards the recent proposal to merge the prose plot summaries from the Game of Thrones season articles to the Game of Thrones episodes article, a Featured List, and the apparent consensus to do with by the support of two other editors. -- Alex^TW 08:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The Use of Ellipsis in Article Titles

A discussion over the merging of two articles is occurring over at Talk:There's...Johnny!. The main issue of debate at this moment is the use a space after an ellipsis in the title (see There's... Johnny! and There's...Johnny!). I am inquiring to the Wikipedia community as to whether is a policy or some sort of guideline in the Manual of Style that might give some direction on how this situation should be handled. Is there a proper way of using an ellipsis in an article title or sentence? Is one more grammatically correct than the other? If anyone has any insight into this, I would certainly appreciate their response. – BoogerD (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

USA or Other Viewers of Episodes

Is there a policy/template on listing viewers per episode of a series. I ask because for example this article List of My Hero Academia episodes includes the USA episode watching numbers and Kantō region rating details in the Summary section. My feeling is that this information is of marginal interest, and if it is to be included, it should probably be in a separate column, not in the Summary. Are there any examples where "episode watching numbers" are included in summaries? Ozflashman (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ratings provide important real-life context to fictional topics. I'd include both of them, or perhaps just the Kantō ratings unless the show is particularly popular in the U.S., in columns of the table (alongside air date). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not sure I agree with this, especially as Kantō is only one small region in Japan. Just because data exists it doesn't automatically warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also the data is from a secondary soutce, Anime News Network. Ozflashman (talk)

I wouldn't call an area with 43 million inhabitants "one small region". I'm not saying we should include it because it exists, but because it's important real-life context. Including ratings is simply the standard in television-related articles. Find a better source for the data if you think it's inadequate, but as long as it's reliable I see no problem with secondary sources for ratings. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• My argument is that Kantō is one of 8 regions in a country of almost 127 million people, so why not include statistics for all regions, or total Japanese viewers? Also reliability is not the question, it is a secondary source of unverified data and also no clarification of what the rating actually means. That being said, this information still does not belong in the Summary. Ozflashman (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I see multiple issue here. The first is – why aren't these ratings listed in a 'Ratings' column in the table, rather than appended into the episodes summaries prose? Or does {{Japanese episode list}} not have such a parameter? (If so, I support its merging into {{Episode list}} even more strongly!) Second, why are there separate "season" articles in this case?! The "season" articles don't contain enough separate content to justify standalone "season" articles, and the content there should be merged back to the LoE article (and to the parent article in the case of DVD info...). They are also misnamed under WP:NCTV, regardless – it should be My Hero Academia (season 1), not List of My Hero Academia episodes (season 1)... All these kinds of issues seem rife with the so-called "anime" articles, from what I've seen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• There are multiple issues with the My Hero Academia collection of articles, however I'd like to focus on the "episode watching numbers" first. Ozflashman (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, to me the main problem is the fact that a Japanese show has US release date and viewership information. Either WP:TVINTL is followed or it isn't and then all countries should be added. As an additional note, "English airdate" column seems to me also out of place, as it gives a date, but doesn't say what country and channel it was shown on, so not very useful information. --Gonnym (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes – that should be "U.S. air date" or "UK air date" or "Canadian air date" (whereever it aired in the "English-speaking world" first), but "English air date" is so vague as to be opaque! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the two above comments, especially the vagueness of "English airdate". Ozflashman (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Without getting involved in the discussion below about Removing viewing figures from episode tables is there some agreement that the statistics I refer to in List of My Hero Academia episodes do not belong in the Episode Summary? Ozflashman (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The King of Queens

Could we please get some more eyes of The King of Queens? There is an anonymous editor there persistently replacing the partially referenced "Syndication" section with an unreferenced, listified, flag heavy version,[1][2][3][4] despite reversions and any requests on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

In cases like this, the editor should be reported to WP:ANEW or WP:ANI. -- Alex^TW 06:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

That's the next step but I've only just given him a final warning today. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ozark (TV series)

Hi all, your opinions are needed regarding whether a lengthy section detailing symbols and their explanations from the opening credits of Ozark. I'm a somewhat newer editor to the Ozark article, and by looking at the edit history, the content has generally been deleted as per being trivial. Here's a few examples of it being deleted previously. The newest version of it is even more lengthy and detailed, and the editor who created it, now moved the content to its own article: Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols, which is even more problematic. Please see the talk pages, Talk:Ozark (TV series) and Talk:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols if you wish to share an opinion. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for San Junipero

Editors familiar with the featured article process may be interested in the nomination of "San Junipero", an episode of anthology series Black Mirror. The nomination can be found here. Thanks! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

xtreams?

What is "xtreams" inserted here:[5]? Is it something we should use for anything? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Tardigrades in popular culture

There's a discussion at Talk:Tardigrade/Archive 1#In_popular_culture about this currently removed section (see history for details). This is a version I'm personally ok with:[6], South Park, Discovery etc. If you have an opinion, please join the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove viewing figures from episode tables

I believe that including viewership data in episode tables is not appropriate. The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode. Having a column for viewership data in the same table appears to be out of place. We could instead have this data presented in the appropriate "Ratings" section of a season article with ratings tables using {{Television episode ratings}}, that also provide info on share/rating and a more accurate picture of delayed viewing with DVR ratings. - Radiphus (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this. However, it's such a big change that it would require a very strong consensus. I think it actually came up somewhere while discussing the viewer graph templates... Anyways. I would support the removal of the viewer parameter, as it's not something that relates to the episode as it airs. You don't say, "The episode was titled A, directed by B and written by C. Oh, and did you know that it had D viewers?" This way, viewership info can be confined to the correct sections and templates. It will also match with episode tables for Netflix(/other online streaming service) series that don't have ratings information, so that broadcast series have their own separate section for such info. Often, rows on the {{Television episode ratings}} template are hidden until the episode has actually aired, else it appears as just duplication of the episode name and date - having the viewership info in the episode table is exactly the same manner of duplication. -- Alex^TW 13:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

As I don't usually edit these templates, just to be clear, articles use both Template:Episode list and Template:Television episode ratings? If so then I agree it shouldn't be added to the episode list. --Gonnym (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. -- Alex^TW 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A lot of articles don't include ratings tables so the viewer figures in the episode tables is the only viewership data that there is. Once upon a time we didn't include viewership data in the episode tables but it became so popular to do so (usually by using |Aux4=) that in 2012 we added a field specifically for viewer data. Currently, 10,671 articles use {{Episode list}} while only 357 use {{Television episode ratings}}. How many actually have a ratings section is a bit harder to work out. However, it would be rather silly to even consider removing the Viewers field as this would remove the only ratings data in thousands of articles.

The episode table is supposed to provide information (title, airdate, credits, plot) that help identify an episode - That's never actually been the case. The episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode and that includes everything that is catered for in {{Episode list}} including viewer figures. There have been plenty of articles where ratings tables have actually been removed because what was in them was redundant to what was in the episode table.

You don't say, "The episode was titled A, directed by B and written by C. Oh, and did you know that it had D viewers?" - You may not but a lot of people find value in the information. Strictly speaking, all you really need to identify an episode is the title and air date, not writers, directors, production codes and so on. Different readers have different requirements and so we incorporate a lot of information to cater for the needs of different readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we move it back to Aux4, while removing Viewers, then we as a team review the articles and take a look at which ones need ratings sections. We did it with the over 2000+ articles that needed colour updates, it's not that big an issue. If episode table is supposed to provide encyclopaedic information about an episode, then why are the complete ratings and shares not included there? They are encyclopaedic information about an episode. Why do we not include air dates in other countries? The multitude of people listed in a varying number of occupations in the credits? It's not really a solid reason for the inclusion of one piece of information, when so many more are available but also not included. Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant, and would give an actual reason for such a section, as well as removing the duplication. (Personally, I believe production codes have no place there either, but that's another discussion.) -- Alex^TW 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In a word, "No", that's a terrible idea, and will make {{Episode list}} less useful to editors. There's a disconcerting attitude among many Wikipedians, that "editors should serve template editors, and readers should serve editors" – that's exactly backwards. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that attitude. The only one I've seen is that I never understand these discussions, as almost nothing ever passes with consensus in this WikiProject. I can't recall the last time something did. -- Alex^TW 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Then we move it back to Aux4, while removing Viewers - I'm sorry Alex but that is probably the most absurd thing that you've ever suggested. Aux4 is a general field while the entire point of the Viewers field is to display viewer information. There are thousands of articles that have viewer figures and nothing else. They're always going to need the Viewers field because the other ratings information likely isn't available any more. We're not going to create ratings tables where we don't have information necessary to populate the tables and we won't be removing viewer information without damn good reason so why move the information from a perfectly valid field? It makes no sense at all.

We did it with the over 2000+ articles that needed colour updates - We were compelled to do it for those articles because colour is an accessibility issue. There is no issue that requires us to revise ratings information in articles.

why are the complete ratings and shares not included there? - Like everything else on Wikipedia that is missing, it's because nobody has added it. In some cases it's not available, especially for programs that aired decades before Wikipedia existed.

Removing the requirement for a viewers parameter - There is no requirement that the field be populated, or any ratings information be included at all. It, however, is encyclopaedic information seen to be important by many editors and readers so we provide a venue for it to be included.

means that the ratings sections would no longer be redundant - Existence of the field doesn't mean that the rating sections are redundant so removing it wouldn't change anything.

would give an actual reason for such a section - Similarly, lack of a field doesn't justify the creation of a section. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

You insulting my opinion isn't going to make this discussion go faster, so I'm done here. No discussion in this WikiProject ever gets consensus anyways; as soon as someone suggests a new topic, they get attacked: this, the ratings graphs, merging episode lists, overhauls, everyone's personal standard practices. -- Alex^TW 17:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't insulting your opinion, just stating that the implementation is absurd, and I explained why this is so. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds of "table creep". IOW, it's not the 'Viewers' column that needs to be removed from episodes tables – it's the unnecessary proliferation of 'Ratings tables' (esp. {{Television episode ratings}}) further down the article that needs to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Why would we keep the single piece of information (that doesn't properly describe an episode's ratings) and removed the table of detailed information? -- Alex^TW 14:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm also opposed – it's fine to decide on an article-by-article basis whether the column, a ratings table, a prose section or a mixture are best. I simply don't understand the arguments that ratings are out of place on the episode table – it's a simple numerical fact about the episode – and "if we include one rating we would have to include them all" is a slippery slope fallacy in this case, because we often include just one airdate or just one episode title when the episode might have been broadcast in 153 different countries and 86 different languages. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

My feelings on these matters have been clear for years. I've never been in agreement for ratings tables that contain a lot of redundant information and information that most readers don't understand. I would actually be more of a proponent of adding 1 additional column that has those precious shares, so we can do away with an entire table that isn't necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is a general interest encyclopedia, {{Television episode ratings}} contains a bunch of WP:INDISCRIMINATE info (see: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.") that we should not be reporting . We should not be playing Madison Avenue's tedious game, and reporting upteen iterations of "demo" ratings. For a general encyclopedia, "All Viewers" "same day" ratings is sufficient. I don't even think we need to report "share"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"Share" is linked to Nielsen ratings. Should we then nominate that article for deletion? It's nothing of interested to a general reader. -- Alex^TW 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

How "viewserhip" is obtained from "share" is a tedious technical question that we don't need to throw at readers in the 'Ratings' info we present. Obviously, the details on that are relevant specifically at the article Nielsen ratings, but not necessarily elsewhere. But most of what is derived from that is irrelevant Madison Avenue b.s. that we can, and should, ignore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine the average person browsing Wikipedia even knows what a share is. It's just an extra bit of data people add for broadcast shows as it's never really reported on cable. Cable shows have served just fine without it as people only really care about the 18-49 demo and the amount of live or dvr viewers. Esuka323 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so we delete the article. The average person doesn't know what a share is, right? What's the 18-49 demo? -- Alex^TW 16:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The 18-49 demographic is a metric used to sell commercials to advertisers. Basically it's how virtually all of the networks out there make their money from shows. It's more important than overall viewers. There's only a few instances where total viewers mean something and that's for networks like Starz or HBO that rely on how many subscribers are viewing their shows live and ondemand. Esuka323 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Aussie, IJBall, Bilorv, and Bignole. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per other points raised. They serve a valid purpose in the episode tables for casual users browsing wikipedia. Esuka323 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose this as well. Listing total viewers for episodes along with titles, credits, etc. is appropriate, historical, encyclopedic content (a secondary benefit no one has brought up- the inline citations after ratings also serve to verify air dates). In fact it’s the inverse that I find less useful to the general public: the ridiculously excessive demo ratings data tables, as mentioned by some above. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

If the C3 ratings were made public I would have suggested a few changes for tables. C3 ratings are the internal numbers held by networks that track Live + 3 days of commercial viewing and are generally around the same level as the L+SD 18-49 viewing as Nielsen viewers skip commercials. With a short explanation someone could have created a table of sorts. Esuka323 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been suggested already, but could we just encourage users to not include viewership information in the episode table if there is already a separate ratings table covering it? And if there is not enough data to fill out a separate ratings table, then they could be encouraged to just use the viewership column in the episode table. That gives editors and option depending on what is available for each article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the column should be removed, however I agree with some other editors that if a ratings table exists, then the episode table shouldn't include ratings (no need to duplicate the information). -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: Conversion of Project Blue Book (TV series) to article about History drama

Seen in Archive 27, it seems that this discussion never really got off the ground, and the further advice the user sought was never given. I’m willing to pick up the project. Is this okay?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Fokus (Indosiar news program)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to hadnle Fokus (Indosiar news program). It's unsourced, at the wrong location, the lead looks like it might be a copyvio and I don't understand the purpose of the "Programme Fokus at Indosiar" section. I've already done some cleanup and the prod notice was removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was WP:DEPRODed, you'll have no choice but to WP:AfD it, then. But unsourced = no claim to notability in my book. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Seconded to AFD. -- Alex^TW 14:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Same editor created Kompas (Kompas TV news program), it was moved to Draft, and he moved it right back. --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And I just moved it right back to Draftspace. We may have a WP:DE editor on our hands... 16:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a similar problem with various other articles. I just moved two to draft space (Draft:Liputan 6 and Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program) but am noticing more, like SCTV (Indonesia)... I suspect WP:COI editing. —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding: To discover more, we can use the "what links here" feature when on the mainspace pages (it works even if they were moved). —PaleoNeonate – 05:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll add Pandji Pragiwaksono to the list. While it seems that is sourced, one is to a blog, one is to the subject's website and another is to a school record? (have no idea what that is). --Gonnym (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Splash and Bubbles

I need all eyes at Splash and Bubbles. We have a user who hates the eel character and his song and keeps removing them from the article. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If they do it again, hit up WP:RfPP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources for air dates outside the U.S.?

For the air dates of TV shows that (formerly) aired in the United States, there are numerous possible sources – TV Guide, Zap2It, Amazon, The Futon Critic... even EpGuides.

What I'd like to know is – are there any equivalent comprehensive "authoritative" sources for episodes and air dates for TV shows in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, et al., and if so, what are they?! (I took a quick look at the Radio Times website, but it doesn't seem to have the kind of episodes/air dates database that TV Guide's does.)

I'm particularly interested in something like this for Canada, and the UK (but I'd be interested in a source for air dates for any of these countries...). TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

UK, I've always used RadioTimes (example). Australia, Australian Television. Canada, I've always seemed to have to use Zap2It (like at List of Killjoys episodes, but that may be because it airs in the US at the same time...). -- Alex^TW 03:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

There's some links at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ that may assist. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Members Only (TV series)

I'd like some WP:TV opinions on this one, and whether it meets WP:TVSHOW despite having never aired on television. What concerns me about this article is that there is no info on whether anything more than the pilot was filmed, and no information as to why a "straight-to-series" order was eventually cancelled and not filled/filmed. Without those two pieces of information, I don't think it merits its own article... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

If it was never aired, I'm not sure it merits being called a TV series, but its existence, & (more importantly) how it ended up cancelled before airing, IMO deserves a page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

But when/how/why was it cancelled?! And was more than just a pilot filmed?!... I agree that a "straight-to-order" series not actually airing is unusual, possibly even unusual enough to merit an article, despite the fact the WP:TVSHOW is quite clear that unaired TV pilots generally don't merit articles. But the current article doesn't cover any of this. If it did, I'd probably consider it "notable". But, without this, what makes this different from any of the zillion other "unaired TV pilots" that don't merit their own articles?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability is about the sources that exist, not the ones in the article at present. I'd research further before I commented if we were at AfD, but with a cursory glance at the article and the sources, it looks quite borderline. A few of the sources don't contribute to notability and I have a feeling the rest fall under WP:ROUTINE. The fact that it was cancelled after broadcast announcements does make it quite a rare case, so maybe there are more sources out there. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes

Hi all, would any interested parties please keep an eye on List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes? There appears to be some article ownership issues going on by an unresponsive editor, who keeps bringing the article out of alignment with MOS.

Side note: I see US air dates listed, but the series is French and those US dates in some cases come years after the debuts. There is also some weirdness in the Series overview, where we're tracking multiple airdates on different networks and there's no context for any of the information. My attempts to discuss with the editor have been met with silence, but I'm hoping that people more familiar with the series and current WP:TV community preferences please take a look. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"Serial" in the context of Pakistani television

Is anyone here familiar with Pakistani television and can explain to me what "serial" or "drama serial" means in the Pakistani television context? From reading various sources I'm left confused, as some make it seem as they are either drama TV series, telenovela series or a limited 1-season series. Pakistani dramas doesn't help nor does Miniseries. The Hum Awards which give a Hum Award for Best Drama Serial says in the lead Best Drama Serial is considered the most important of the Hum Awards, as it represents all the directing, acting, music, writing, and other efforts put forth into a drama. They also have awards for sitcom, soap and televilm, which either means they have no "regular" non-sitcom TV series on their network, or that "serial" in Pakistani television means "TV series" in western television. --Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I finally took a look at Pakistani dramas (sidenote: should the article be plural like that?! or should it be moved to Pakistani drama?!...) – I've edited the article to replace all mention of miniseries (which is basically a North American term that I've never seen used in the context of Pakistani television) with use of the term "serial", as pretty much all sourcing, including that used at the Pakistani dramas article! use the term "serial", but never "miniseries". Thus, use of the term "serial" definitely seems widespread enough here, that "serial" can be used to disambiguate these single-season (i.e. "limited series") Pakistani television dramas... I'll ping Cyphoidbomb, in case he'd like to comment here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Should probably be in singular form. Back to the point though, my main question was does the term "serial" in Pakistani television mean the same thing that it does in UK television? "Serial" for disambiguation, is used for television series that are in a miniseries format, with the name matching local usage. Limited series are still just a TV series, so for disambiguation (NCTV) matter, it really doesn't matter what they call it as we aim for a WP:CONSISTENT style. However, if "serial" does mean a "miniseries" then it's usage is OK. Also, going back to the Hum Awards, does that network not have any television drama series which are not "Limited series"? It just seems that there is a missing piece here... --Gonnym (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over content

User:Fordham73 and I disagree as to whether Award Theatre#List of movies shown is appropriate or not. Comments? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree with your singling out this particular entry as showing "too much information" when I thought that Wikipedia tried to show as much information as possible on a related subject. There are literally hundreds of Wikipedia listings regarding television shows that list every episode, the plot line, who starred in the show, the director and the date the episode was shown. Why single out Award theater for information limitation when there is such great detail in other areas. I happen to remember watching Award theater as a kid and enjoy the information as it does have a nostalgic touch as I'm sure many of the listings do for millions of Wikipedia users. Fordham 73 Fordham73 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, including "as much information as possible on a related subject" is not Wikipedia's goal. (See WP:TRIVIA for instance.) Of course, (some) shows with actual original content have episode listings. It's not the same thing. List of M*A*S*H episodes, for example, is an entirely different animal. The essence of WP:ILIKEIT is applicable here. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the ones listed aren't even sourced. Saying Per respective contemporary TV listings in The New York Times, Daily News and TV Guide (New York Metropolitan edition) is not a reference. To the point, I also think the list is irrelevant. There is a huge difference between an original TV series having information about the original episodes it airs vs a (semi-local) TV "show" which aired theatrical films. I couldn't even verify the NYTimes sources to see if they actually talk about the show or just mention it in passing (site is blocked to me). --Gonnym (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gonnym – including the list of movies may or may not be encyclopedic, if the entire list is sourced to something. But, right now, the list (save 1 or 2 entries) doesn't even appear to be sourced – and by that, I mean explicitly sourced, not generally sourced to, "Hey! Check the TV Guides and NY Times of the era!!" – until that happens, it needs to go... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the list is encyclopedic because Award Theatre wasn't producing these films, only showing them, and we wouldn't list every film ever shown on (for instance) NBC, or every book ever sold in a notable bookshop. Of course the size of the list is important, but I think this list of ~100 items is too many (it would be different if it was a list of five). As others have pointed out, the aim of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, not to include every piece of information that exists (see WP:IINFO). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

As there appears to be a strong consensus, I'm going to delete the section. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Home media release tables

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Supergirl (TV series)#DVD and Blu-ray releases regarding media release tables, especially regarding combining DVD and Blu-ray regions. This is part of a much wider issue that exists at multiple articles so it would benefit from much wider discussion on the matter. Accordingly, I'm inviting everyone to participate in the discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't such a discussion about a "much wider issue" not be held here? -- Alex^TW 09:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The immediate problem is the Supergirl article and that provides an example of the problem. However, it does affect multiple articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Let the Right One In (TV series)

Another TV pilot that was not picked up to series, and never aired anywhere. Thus, subject does not seem to meet WP:TVSHOW... So, leave the article alone, or take it to WP:AfD?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say to AFD it, but I can see non-WP:TV members strongly suggesting to keep it because of the sufficient content and enough sources. I'd then suggest to draftify it, but then it may never come to series... -- Alex^TW 01:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead image for Emilia Clarke article

We need some opinions on the following: Talk:Emilia Clarke#Lead image. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Witcher

Can we get some more eyes on the articles for The Witcher, please? We don't create articles for the television series in the mainspace until production has started filming, which is why I moved The Witcher (TV series) to Draft:The Witcher (TV series), but then someone decided to recreate the article at The Witcher (U.S. TV series), and a discussion was started at Talk:The Witcher (U.S. TV series). I have a feeling it may be a problematic issue. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 00:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the redirect issue, as the article will ultimately reside at The Witcher (TV series), not The Witcher (U.S. TV series) (which is unnecessarily disambiguated).... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witcher (TV series); contributions are welcome there. -- Alex^TW 08:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Main image for American Horror Story: Apocalypse article

The main image is being discussed on the article's talk page. The options are the season's key art or the one being used on the article now. --DrBat (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Requested move 14 September 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Gifted (TV series)#Requested move 14 September 2018. This one is getting contentious, so the opinions of more WP:TV regulars would probably be useful here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Episode plot length tags

An editor has taken exception to tagging individual overlength episode summaries with {{plot}} at Lost in Space (2018 TV series).[7] Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Lost in Space (2018 TV series)#Episode summary lengths. Should we be tagging individual episodes or just the section? --AussieLegend (✉) 21:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV/Shows#Need a UK TV expert!!

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV/Shows#Need a UK TV expert!!. A UK TV expert is needed to help figure out whether Gadzooks! (TV programme) and Gadzooks! It's All Happening are the same TV programme or not! Please comment at the linked-to topic above, if you know! TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Tv show template not rendering

Slight emergency:

List of Frontline (PBS) episodes

See the bottom few seasons. They don't render.

I put one of the seasons into a sandbox and it renders fine: User:Anna Frodesiak/Gold sandbox.

Click edit for the whole page, then preview save. There's a red error message.

Is the total page size too big or something? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting that this article is misnamed under WP:NCTV, and is already tagged with Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Holby City episodes

Hi, I've just tried to add episode tables to List of Holby City episodes because they were missing for some reason but the later ones aren't showing properly. Does anyone know why they aren't working, please? Thank you. Matt14451 (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice how all templates from Series 13 onwards aren't working. If you edit and preview, you get the warning Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. You can read more at Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. -- Alex^TW 10:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see a warning when I previewed the changes. Not sure how to solve it. Matt14451 (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Other articles I've seen just split it somewhere and create two lists List of Holby City episodes (seasons 1–15) and another one (see List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20)). --Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, splitting the article sounds like the only option. 15 series don't fit on the current page so 10 seems like best. List of Holby City episodes (series 1–10). Matt14451 (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability for future TV series

There's been a lot of use of WP:NFF to not create articles in the mainspace for upcoming films that have not begun principle photography, and we typically use an identical practice for television series that have not begun principle photography (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Witcher (TV series)), but we don't have a supporting guideline. Would it be worth creating WP:NFTV (Notability for Future Television Series) as either a copyedit of NFF, or rewording NFF to include television series? Or even/also rewording WP:NTV to include such information too? Other discussions where this has been mentioned can be found at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 20 § Heated Disagreements about Future Programming
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 23 § WP:NFF equivalent for TV?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 23 § New article - Martial Universe
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 25 § Categorizing future debuts / seasons

-- Alex^TW 03:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

100% yes. I feel we desperately need this so we can have something to point users to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. I've seen a few two-sentence articles pop up in recent times, following an announcement of a show. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is good advice but should not preclude a TV series where there is a good deal of secondary information already out there from being created prior to any production work. Most of the time, there's only going to be long running speculation before production, so yes, we shouldn't have articles, but if one can develop a reasonably good length article that is more than just speculation and random casting announcements, so that even if the series ends up being cancelled before it hits, it was still notable , we shouldn't block an article on it. --Masem (t) 04:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this is why it is a good idea to have a guideline. What constitutes enough reliable information to develop an article. If a press release is picked up that says "Network X has commissioned Show Y starring John Smith for broadcast next season" is that enough to establish notability? If not, how much more is needed? It is impossible to develop a guideline that covers all cases of course, but something with explicit examples and details would be beneficial -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that generally such articles should remain in draft or sandbox pages until a premiere date is announced or at least a premiere range—such as fall—like what the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, The CW) do. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Shows that come to mind that were cancelled/delayed but had enough coverage are Confederate and The After (which had a singular pilot released). Articles for these can exist (which is why discussions on Confederate have failed to delete/draftify the article), as long as there's a consensus for them that there's enough information about the series. -- Alex^TW 07:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

This gets back to WP:TVSHOW needing a rewrite/expansion. (And this should be done there, not under WP:NFILM...) I support that. I've been toying with the idea of doing it myself, but I suspect I'll never have enough time... To this specific question, I am of the opinion that a TV series article should not exist 99.9% of the time unless, 1) it has been "picked up to series" (i.e. is past the "TV pilot" stage, and has had episodes after the pilot actually ordered by a network or streaming service), and 2) production (e.g. filming) has actually taken place on the post-pilot episodes... But we have way too many people creating articles when only a pilot has been ordered, and we've got to put a stop to that! So this needs to be be written into our TVSHOW notability guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that there should be a TV equivalent of this. For those concerned about this stopping early articles that have enough content to exist anyway, this would just be a guideline and so exceptions could be argued for just as they are done with NFF. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I question articles like Lambs of God and Mr. Black existing, where there is little more than an announcement with primary casting and series plot. Some would argue that there is enough there, others would say there's not enough to establish notability. A guideline would help set things out in this respect -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that those particular articles need an immediate move to draft. Should we reword NFF to fit television media and substitute it into NTV? -- Alex^TW 07:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the discussion here. I find no value in 1-3 sentence stub articles. It seems they are created just for the sake of being created. If an editor feels the need to add that, it can be added to a production company/channel's "future projects" section, where that 1 sentence has much more context. --Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the way forward on this is for somebody to start a separate discussion on what changes/updates need to be made to WP:TVSHOW, a la Favre1fan93's Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates, perhaps with proposed new language, and then we can have a discussion about it. There is clearly consensus from a lot of us that TVSHOW needs to be improved (and there has been for a while!), so maybe we can finally tackle this. I know I personally would like to see some language changes and updates to TVSHOW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

How should we handle the episode count for ongoing series/seasons?

I used to defend updating the number of episodes every week (dating back to this discussion), but let's face it, with regards to ongoing seasons (such as List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures episodes) readers will already know how many episodes have aired without having to look at "No. of episodes" and thus updating the number every week (before the season has ended) is redundant. It can also be misleading because sometimes editors forget to update the number (27 episodes of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Adventures have aired in the US yet according to the infobox, only 24 have aired) and therefore just saying "Ongoing" and leaving the episode count to the reader is better than confusing anyone by saying this many episodes have aired even though this many episodes have actually aired. Plus I think it'll be easier to just update the episode titles/summaries every week for seasons that are still running instead of simultaneously updating that and episode count (and only add the episode count after the season has finished).

As to ongoing series, such as The Simpsons (where listing the episode count on the series page without having to painstakingly go to the episode lists is appropriate), I think saying "639+ episodes" would be better than just saying "639 episodes". That way, the reader will know that more than 639 episodes may have actually aired instead of being misled into thinking only 639 episodes have aired. Hell, "640+ episodes" (only updating every 10 episodes) might even be more appropriate when the 30th season premieres than doing 641+/642+/643+ every time a new episode airs.

What I'm suggesting is that we use "Ongoing" for all ongoing television seasons and "[number of episodes]+" for all ongoing series. What does everyone else think? —Mythdon 23:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "updating the episode figures weekly" is silly for a project such as this one (i.e. we're not an "up-to-date "news" outlet"...), so anything that gets away from that I will support... And, let's face it – it's not like we even try to do that for the daytime soap operas that air daily. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of using "+". I think "as of [date]", used in some articles anyway, is more precise and useful. (To clarify, I think it's only appropriate if a show is currently partway through a season.) As for updating tallies at the release of every episode, it varies from show to show – clearly this isn't a good idea for daytime television, but if it's a show with one season of six episodes and you just update the tally every time you come to write another plot summary, that seems fine to me. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 02:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

"As of [date]" works too. As far as updating the number for shows with one season of six episodes, those are more like miniseries anyway and doesn't really put a lot of workload on editors by updating the number. —Mythdon 02:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(It's besides the point but in places such as Britain, six episodes is the standard length of a season, or rather a series. Our miniseries are generally three episodes long.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Very much a non-issue as far as those cases go. —Mythdon 22:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear what the problem is here that you are wanting to address. From what I have seen, there are many users who are more than happy to update these figures each week along with other changes that are made following the release of a new episode, and assuming that readers already know how many episodes a series has when they have just got to the infobox doesn't make a whole lot of sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Basically its to address inaccuracies when you constantly have to keep something up-to-date that's outdated a lot of the time (as I've seen with many things on this project). It's like I said above, editors often don't update these things after they update the episode summaries and stuff, pretty much rendering it useless because the number of episodes in the infobox is often going to be less than the number of episodes that have actually aired. That just puts more workload on other editors when they see that the number hasn't been updated in like 2-3 weeks. As for it being confusing, when a reader sees that the infobox says 24 episodes have aired, they're automatically going to think 24 episodes have aired and not think to scroll down through episode list where they'll see 27 episodes have actually aired (they're just going to go by the infobox). Hence why I say its better to just focus on updating the episode titles/summaries and air dates while a season is still airing. —Mythdon 22:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that point of view. However, this is not an issue for any of the TV articles that I am watching as it seems that there are almost too many editors always scrambling at once to get these values updated. In those cases, a change like this would harm the article because it forces readers to go and find the total number of episodes when it is not that hard to show them the actual value. For other cases where the articles may not be so popular / avidly watched and updated, this sort of solution may be beneficial. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Even with that, using "as of [date]" still wouldn't be a bad idea in those cases. Even in such cases where the number is frequently updated, it's only appropriate to indicate its ongoing status in the infobox. Although that kind of trumps my previous arguments about lessening the workload, if they're going to update the number anyway, frequently enough to where it's almost always up-to-date, "as of [date]" would still help in ensuring that readers know that's the number for that specific date and that the number is soon expected to be updated. —Mythdon 13:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against a proposal for having "No. Eps: X (as of __)" in the infobox, if we wanted to try get more opinions on that and hopefully some sort of community consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If used, should use the {{As of}}. Maybe there is even an option to add a TV attribute (tv=true, tv_season_over=true) so it would go into a specific TV maintenance category for easier fixing. --Gonnym (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd support some form of "(as of DATE)" in the infobox for shows which have not concluded airing or are no longer in production -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

And just how would it be useful for shows that are no longer in production when "series ended on [so and so date]" already serves the same purpose? —Mythdon 04:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If the series ended, I don't think you need "(as of DATE)" because it would be obvious that it is of the finishing date. However, for a program still airing/in production, the "(as of DATE)" would clarify when it was updated, given it is unlikely to be updated after every episode aired, particularily for daily or year-round weekly shows. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha and that's where the consensus seems to be leaning. Sorry that I misunderstood your previous comment. —Mythdon 04:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Chat show guest appearances

What is the guideline concerning edits like this where the subject of the article has appeared on a chat show, often to plug their latest offering? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any applicable guideline but I would view this as a trivial part of Langford's long career and remove it, along with several other similar entries further down the list: Strictly Come Dancing (if she was just an audience member; I don't know the full context), The Saturday Show, Saturday Kitchen, Lorraine, This Morning (again), Loose Women etc. I also wonder whether the quiz show appearances (e.g. Supermarket Sweep, The Weakest Link) should be mentioned. The list would also be better in the standard table format that is used for most sections of this kind. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Definitely falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. While WP:FILMOGRAPHY doesn't mention this explicitly, it's been standard practice to remove such appearances from actor, etc. Filmographies as being non-notable. Any talk show appearances that are notable (e.g. Hugh Grant, Tom Cruise) should be mentioned in that article's prose (sourced), not in the Filmography. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I can think of instances where an appearance, of itself, might be notable: first appearance on Carson's "Tonight Show", or on Leno's first as regular host, or something, but in general, IMO, no. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Why would that be notebale for the actors filmography? It might be notable as IJBall said for a prose section, but I really can't see how it fits in that list. --Gonnym (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think unless their appearance has been covered by reliable sources, then no, otherwise these lists would get out of control. Same reason we don't provide episode lists for talk shows or list every guest (even if they're a notable person) that's ever appeared on a talk show. If their appearance isn't notable, then it shouldn't be listed. WP:NOTNEWS seems to cover this somewhat. —Mythdon 06:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Since there's clear consensus, I quickly removed a load in this edit, but the section still needs more trimming and formatting. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd say that appearing in an award show (except maybe being the host) is also non-notable as are archive photos/videos, so remove entries like Dancing on Ice Series 5 -(Preview Show & Programme 5) – ITV 1 – (2010) – Herself (archive footage) and 23rd National Television Awards - ITV 1 - January 23 - Guest (As part of Eastenders Cast) Nominated for Best Serial Drama. This from the description seems also non-notable - Strictly Come Dancing Series 15 - BBC1 - Week 6 (Halloween Week) October 28 & 29 2017 - Guest/Studio audience. Side note, that section does not source any appearance and uses pseudo-headers, both of which should be fixed. --Gonnym (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the rest of the guest appearances since Awards/Nominations are much more suitable for their own section or in article prose (rather than just listing everytime they appeared in an Awards show). Whatever is worthy of inclusion can be reincorporated into the article in a more appropriate fashion. —Mythdon 13:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you everybody. That's what I thought. Now, should we encapsulate this into a style guideline that we can direct people to in future? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think that'll cause too much of a formality. Plus I think the other content policies (even though they don't explicitly mention stuff like this) can already be applied to this situation with common sense. I think adding more guidelines would just complicate things further. —Mythdon 22:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree with my friend up here, Manual of Style guidelines are exactly what the backend of Wikipedia is made of, without it, you'll just have this same conversation over and over and over and over again ad nauseam. --Gonnym (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

A mention could probably be made somewhere in one of the already existing policies/guidelines. —Mythdon 22:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It should go into WP:FILMOGRAPHY – something along the lines of: Only notable appearances should be included. This would rule out talk show appearances, "unnamed" (e.g. Guard #3) roles, roles as "extras", uncredited appearances (unless sourced), and non-notable short film roles (which is nearly all of them!). FTR, I've toyed with the idea of creating a WP:NOTIMDb essay about this (I have a draft of this in my userspace) – I just never got around to finishing it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay here are the archive links

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_25#Guest_appearances_on_chat_shows_and_similar
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture/Archive_4#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections
• Also this for "additional voices" and non-notable appearances / cameos: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_70#When_are_additional_voices_eligible_for_inclusion_in_voice_actor_articles?_2 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, one was mine. It certainly seems to be something where we need firm guidance that we can direct newbies to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, as I said without it, you'll just have this same conversation over and over and over and over again ad nauseam - 4 discussions in ~15 months. --Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

A discussion should probably be started at WT:FILMBIO about this, pointing to this discussion, so we can figure out exactly what language we want to add to WP:FILMOGRAPHY to cover this issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Dealing with characters from large ensemble, evolving plot shows

This is referring to shows that are generally dramas that have a long ongoing plot and little isolated story, such as The Walking Dead, Westworld, or Better Call Saul. I'm sure there's more examples, but this is to contrast from shows like Star Trek TNG/DS9 or XFiles, where there is long-term character development but each episode has a isolated story from this larger narrative.

In looking at the standalone character articles for these shows (I'm looking at Better Call Saul right now), I'm finding that the traditional way that characters are covered, trying to give even at a higher level, a season-by-season breakdown, causes a lot of duplication between characters and the individual episode plots (which these shows often have enough sourcing to support). For BCS, for example, there are longer-term plot lines two or more characters share that. (Kim and Jimmy's roles in the series are nearly inseparable at this point).

Given that we already have episode plots, that these character articles should have far less biographical/plot summary stuff and try to stay as high level as possible, hitting broad key points but trying to avoid the level of detail we'd use in an episode article. For example, presently our article on Saul Goodman (Jimmy) is far too short even for both series, but even though I've tried to trim it down, Kim Wexler feels too long. I think we need to advice people to write in much broader strokes and not worry about hitting every "plot" point but instead core changes that follow the character through the show's history. --Masem (t) 18:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I never agreed with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Role in "SHOW NAME" - yes, every small detail should not be listed in the article, such as "Jimmy made Kim orange juice in episode 2", but there really isn't a point in most character articles if there is no biography section. So if there is going to be any proposal to make that section even shorter and even more pointless, I'll being opposing it. --Gonnym (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying to we remove biographical sections, but ones that document far too fine a leave (in most cases, at a per-episode level) is too much detail. I realize that the longer a show of these types run for, the more that role will likely change and that more detail is needed, and this is not saying to ignore significant plot points, but that there should be a better smoothing over of what the character does with respect to the series.

In context of standalone character articles, the focus of it should be less on the plot-repetition (but this should not be omitted) but on development and reception; unfortunately, too many character articles are started with the focus on plot, which ends up with this per-episode style approach. --Masem (t) 21:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The Weakest Link (UK game show)

Why this is under The Weakest Link (UK game show), not Weakest Link (UK game show)? On the BBC site there is "Weakest Link" same as in logo. Eurohunter (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... after some research, I see it's not uncommon for sources to use "The Weakest Link", and that's what TV.com labels it as, but the primary source (the BBC website) should overrule these. I'd start a move discussion for this, as it could be controversial, and it's worth noting that International versions of The Weakest Link would also need to be moved. (There's also The Weakest Link (Irish TV series) and The Weakest Link (Australian game show) to look at, as they may or may not have been broadcast with the "The" in the name.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:13, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes – don't move this without having a WP:Requested move discussion first. And it may need to be a "mass move", as some of these are under The Weakest Link, while the U.S. version, for example, is under Weakest Link. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:The Big Bang Theory

Main page: Template:The Big Bang Theory

The above template initially looked like what is displayed in this version. I disagreed with the layout, believing there to be too much whitespace, and that we shouldn't be forcing the template to display empty groups by using the nonbreakable-space-hack. Based on this, I updated the template to what is displayed in this version, but was reverted (initially by an IP, now by someone imitating my name). Thoughts and ideas? -- Alex^TW 02:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You should have started this discussion on the talk page of the relevant article, not here, so that watchers of the page are made aware of the discussion. It appears to tried to change the page two years ago as well and was argued against by @AussieTheLegend:. I did not imitate your name so don't accuse me of that. Each season should have its own section so season articles can be found more easily. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There are far more people watching the WikiProject Television then there are the template. You haven't regarded any of the issues listed and are still attempting to be satirical in your name, and now you're also edit-warring. -- Alex^TW 11:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Number of watchers is irrelevant. The issue is concerned with the template so should be discussed on the talk page of that template. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the idea of what a WikiProject is for. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 12:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the idea of what a talk page is for. Thank you. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Doctor is more right than wrong. It's generally better to have discussion specific to a particular page on that page's talk page. The value with WikiProject pages is that more people do indeed watch them. My usual course of action is to invite watchers here to discuss at the talk page locally i.e. use the WikiProject talk page as more of a noticeboard in cases where the conflict is not widespread. --Izno (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Izno is correct. If you're talking about changes to a specific article or template the correct place for discussion is on the specific article or template's talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Template for split-episode articles

Main page: Template:List has been split

Just a heads up, made a new template for articles where the episodes of a series have been split among several articles; examples can be seen at List of Saturday Night Live episodes (seasons 1–15), List of Survivor (U.S. TV series) episodes (seasons 1–20), List of Frontline (PBS) episodes (seasons 1–20) and List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20). Previously, the notices used raw HTML in the articles, as can be seen here, occasionally with the yellow background here, all with slightly different formatting and grammar here and there. Just makes it easier now.

Also a heads up on a related topic, there's two requested moves at Talk:List of Casualty episodes*#Requested move 30 September 2018 and Talk:List of Holby City episodes*#Requested move 30 September 2018, concerning the title for these two split-episode articles, to match the similar articles mentioned above. -- Alex^TW 03:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Before participating in these RMs you should really understand how transclusion actually works as well as the ramifications of exceeding the post expand include size limits and what is needed to fix the problem. The number of articles that this affects is increasing and is going to be a much more common problem in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

After participating in that discussion, it is clear that it's the transclusion in these cases that's the problem. WP:TV needs to have a wider discussion about this. It's clear that we need to stop the idea that you can still have a "main LoE" page after a "split" like these – there needs to be a true LoE "split" in these cases, and the original LoE article needs to be converted into a WP:DABPAGE. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Need help finding a source for "Story" writing credit

Two part question - I'm trying to find sources for "story" writing credit for Empire Strikes Back, but having a hard time with that. Are there any sites that keep such information that I'm able to cite? Is citing the film allowed for production roles? --Gonnym (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You can cite the film itself if you must, but generally I think a third-party source would be preferred. If it is shown on screen then often reviewers, particular for the trades, will mention that at some point in their review. Also, if you just can't find a good source for it then maybe it isn't that significant. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by not significant? Remove it from the article or not source it? --Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Look on the DVD. If it's there, that's (usually?) good enough, isn't it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Frontline (U.S. TV program)#Requested move 3 October 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Frontline (U.S. TV program)#Requested move 3 October 2018. Several WP:TV'ers have already participated in the related discussion at Talk:List of Frontline (PBS) episodes#Requested move 25 September 2018, so this is just a heads up about this new WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sequel/spinoff parameters

This is in regard to preceded_by, followed_by, and related. It's not clear in the template instructions, but the way I've always understood it is that the first two are used for actual sequels, while the last one is used for spinoffs. However, this is an area where disputes can commonly arise because people don't understand how the parameters work, and it's somewhat understandable, given the ambiguity in the instructions. I think it would just be better if we had related for both sequels and spinoffs and got rid of the other two. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've stated in the past that I believe the preceded_by and followed_by parameters of {{Infobox television}} should be phased out/merged into the related parameter. Such a move will likely set in motion a new set of problems (namely, IP editors adding everything under the sun to the related parameter...), but I've already seen editors do some weird, inexplicable things with the preceded_by and followed_by parameters anyway, so this is nothing new... But simplifying all of the "related" programming together into just the related parameter is, IMO, an improvement over the current situation where there is so much confusion, with some commensurate editor conflicts being generated as a result, as to when to "correctly" use preceded_by, followed_by and related. Better to just put all related programs, whether they be "prequels", "sequels", or "spinoffs" or "revivals", under the related parameter, and be done with it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The video game infobox doesn't allow parameters like these exactly for the reason that they are a pain to manage. (It might be the standout infobox in this regard.) Something to consider would be removal everywhere. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would support a removal/phasing out of |preceded_by= and |followed_by=, and stuck to related. I've barely ever used the parameters myself, but I can easily see how it would be a hassle. We may need to revise the description for it in the documentation for Template:Infobox television, to make sure that editors know it is for directly related shows; i.e. for Doctor Who, we would only list the spin-offs, not the documentary series as well. (Unfortunately though, I can see this not happening. Nothing ever passes for consensus at WT:TV.) -- Alex^TW 01:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd support removal of these parameters as well. They are more trouble than they are worth and I'm sick of trying to explain them to other editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the other option would be to "Nuke /all". That would be my second choice, after merging the other two into the related parameter... But I could possibly be talked into it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

They may be a general nuisance, but that raises the question: what do you do with a series that has spinoffs or prequels? "STTOS", frex (or maybe, more accurately, "TNG"...), with "DS9" & "ST:E". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep them under related, in the order of their prequel/sequel status. At the moment, those articles are linking "Star Trek TV series", which is pretty sufficient. -- Alex^TW 13:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As an FYI, if this goes through, I'll be leaving it to someone who is experienced in working with templates. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 30) nominated for deletion

The Simpsons (season 30), the article on the currently airing season of The Simpsons, has been nominated for deletion. Interested parties are invited to participate in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Simpsons (season 30). --AussieLegend (✉) 18:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Do note now that there is consensus that if an article includes an episode table above all else, then the article is valid and should not be moved to the draft space. -- Alex^TW 03:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Citing "bits" on comedy talk shows as though they are serious interviews

I'm a bit concerned about Fire and Rain (song)#Updated versions, which is based entirely on an spot the singer did on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and quotes him extensively in a matter-of-fact manner, even though anyone who knows anything about that show and others like it knows that oftentimes the more outlandish "revelations" the guests make are actually just meant as jokes, and everyone in the audience is in on it.

We, however, should not be assuming our readers are in on the joke, and even if they were we probably shouldn't be reciting jokes for thr sake of entertaining our readers. Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Just remove it, post this same thing on the article talk page to clarify for future readers, and point to the discussion with a hidden note that states not to reinstate it. -- Alex^TW 10:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

How should the listing of guest stars be handled? (Fictional characters)

In particular, List of Darkwing Duck characters#Other characters is loaded with characters that have only appeared in 1-2 episodes, which I think is problematic for a page that's over 150,000 bytes long (largely due to the amount of plot summaries that are pretty much episode-specific).

I think the biggest problem with listing guest stars (for lack of better word) is with article size, because oftentimes lists of characters are loaded with intricate amounts of plot detail. I'm not saying to get rid of these lists, but perhaps care should be given when applying them, considering that even lists that don't include guest appearances (such List of Pokémon anime characters) are pretty large as is.

If anything, I think a separate list for minor characters is the direction to go in most cases where listing guest stars is involved, particularly for long running series like List of Seinfeld minor characters.

I'm interested to hear everyone else's suggestions on how to handle these.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

"Guest cast" sections are a multi-faceted problem, with many aspects about it that are currently unsatisfactorily handled, IMO.

The specific aspect of this that you're talking about is "Guest cast" in animated TV series. I totally agree with you that most of the animated TV series articles are massively over-stuffed with so-called "Guest cast". My personal opinion is that for the animated TV series articles specifically, we just need to eliminate "Guest cast" sections. It's one thing when you're talking about "Notable guest cast" for a scripted live-action TV series. But it's quite another when you're talking about "one-off" characters on an animated TV series – in these cases, I just don't believe that animated TV series "Guest cast" are actually notable. If there are any "notable guest voice actors", those can just be mentioned in the Production/Casting section of the article. There's no need to include them in the 'Cast' section. That's my $0.02... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Support removal from animation. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't personally have a problem with such a list, and often times I find myself even using it. The notability for an entry in a list is not the same as that for a stand-alone article so those are fine. However, for that specific article, I think the layout and ordering is just a mess. It's not ordered by any visible logic and it's very hard to read. A list like List of Star Wars characters or even List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters (with headers) is much better. --Gonnym (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• If you can only cite the appearance of a character to the work itself, dependent sources, or unreliable sources, it's probably WP:PLOT and should be removed. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism by Special:Contributions/2A02:587:4917:3B00:9DE7:1A50:EE88:49C0

This IP vandalized a lot in TV-related articles vandalizing dates and others. Someone needs to check and rollback these edits. --Denniss (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Edited section header to link to their contributions since IP's don't have userpages. Linking to their userpage gives a redlink instead.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Denniss: Also, try listing it at WP:AIV if the vandalism persists.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Darkwing Duck characters#Merge proposal

I've started a merge discussion for this article.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Heartbeat (UK TV series) and issues with it 'series' articles

Heartbeat (UK TV series) has the following separate "series" articles, in lieu of a proper List of Episodes article (note:List of Heartbeat episodes is a redirect to Heartbeat (series 1–5), which isn't right either...):

• Heartbeat (series 1–5)
• Heartbeat (series 6–10)
• Heartbeat (series 11–15)
• Heartbeat (series 16–18)

The first issue is that, even if the List of Episodes article needs to be split, splitting that into four separate articles is excessive – a "split" of two LoE articles would be sufficient. Second, these are misnamed under WP:NCTV, so they'd need to be moved if they aren't merged. But they should be merged

I'm going to ping wbm1058 to this discussion, as they seem knowledgeable about the techinical issues involved in these, and may be able to figure out how to merge all 4 of these articles back to List of Heartbeat episodes. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Has to be changed to List of and table should be changed to standard episode table. If split into more than 1 article should have season range. --Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's a big project – I may peck away at it, but it'll take some time... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• List of Heartbeat episodes was a "proper" LoE page until it was split in November 2012, albeit with a non-standard table format,[8] something that wasn't unusual back then. I agree, it should be a standard LoE page again and it doesn't look like it would break the post-expand include size. I'd suggest breaking the task into smaller chunks by converting the articles individually and then merging them all back into the LoE page before a final tidy. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I edited Heartbeat (series 1–5) to correct a number of issues but it still contains a lot of information in the ShortSummary fields that really shouldn't be there (guest starts, first and final appearances etc). And Soooo many WP:REDNOT violations. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the three articles and have merged them into two LoE articles: List of Heartbeat episodes (series 1–10) and List of Heartbeat episodes (series 11–18). - Brojam (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, amazing work everyone! That was extremely fast. --Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And now all content merged back down into just List of Heartbeat episodes. I've gone ahead and transcluded Alex's 'series overview' table to the main Heartbeat (UK TV series) article, so I think we're all done here! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-fiction Episode Short Sums

So, there's this discussion, and rather un-decided argument going on regarding what should feature in the Short Sum for an episode of a non-fiction reality show, and I just wonder what is the right thing to add in and the wrong thing to add. Should you detail out the results of something that was a contest, if it's mentioned elsewhere in the article (i.e. a Series/Season article of the associated programme the episode is a part of)? Should you detail out what was done, if like say the episode details the performance of two competing teams in a contest and the mistakes, good ideas and so forth, were done? I truly wish to know to find a way to settle the argument peacefully. GUtt01 (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Need to see an example... But, in general, reality TV show articles are way too over-stuffed with WP:INUNIVERSE contest results which should actually not be covered here, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and WP:INUNIVERSE) – that stuff belongs at the Wikis instead. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

IJBall - A good example is the argument/discussion going on regarding the Short Sums for the 14th series of The Apprentice : This version an editor wishes to make - Version 1; and the current version (for the moment) - Version 2 GUtt01 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll let somebody else deal with the issue of the episode summary. But the "Performance chart" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about – that should not be in articles like this, as it's pure WP:INUNIVERSE trivia, but the reality TV show articles are over-stuffed with exactly this kind of thing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

How is listing results "in universe"? The results exist in the universe in which we are living. OZOO (t) (c) 06:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between the function of Wikipedia, and the function of the fan-driven Wikias. We're supposed to be a general-interest encyclopedia – we're not supposed to report on the details and minutia of television shows. But the people writing the reality TV series articles are generally ignoring this, and treating this project like it's a fan Wikia. They shouldn't. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Who wins and loses is absolutely of general interest to the readers of competition articles. Otherwise, what are we meant to put on there? If someone suggested articles about sporting seasons shouldn't include the results, they'd be laughed at. OZOO (t) (c) 07:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Who wins overall (i.e. the whole season)? Yes, that's relevant. Who wins every rinky-dink "competition" along the way? Absolutely not – that is not of general interest, it's only of interest to fans. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. Who gets eliminated from the show each week is absolutely of interest to the readers of the article. There is no part of MOS:INUNIVERSE which says the results of real-world competition should not be included – not surprising really because that is the writing about fiction MOS. OZOO (t) (c) 07:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from with that, but I'd disagree with the "general-interest encyclopedia" comment. We have entire articles dedicated to just the production of a series or film, many get right into the details for it. -- Alex^TW 07:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd probably need to see an example of what you're referring to, but my guess is that kinds of article you're thinking of are well-sourced to secondary sources. OTOH, things like the 'Performance table' at the article in question are totally unsourced to secondary sources, which puts them back into the realm of pure WP:PRIMARY, WP:INUNIVERSE-type stuff that we shouldn't be including. As for, Ozoo, he's doubly-wrong: I'm a "general interest reader", and I don't give two hoots about who "wins" any particular episode of any reality show, and WP:INUNIVERSE does actually say "Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be." IOW, these kinds of tables basically violate WP:OR, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:NOTDIARY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't give two hoots about who "wins" any particular episode of any reality show - don't go on the articles for reality shows then. Who wins and loses is a key part of the "plot" of the competition show and should be included. This isn't BuzzFeed, we're not shouldn't be saying "You won't BELIEVE what you'll see if you watch the episode." Also, does the bit about how results shouldn't be included (in-universe, OR) apply to other forms of competition? The Sports WikiProject should probably be informed. "Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research": I am not sure which bit of my proposed description is in universe and original research, can you please provide an example? OZOO (t) (c) 15:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

And still you ignore the purpose of this site vs. the purposes of the Wikias – the latter are what's supposed to give you all this fan-luv, "insider", blow-by-blow drivel. We're not supposed to do that here... And, yes – plenty of other articles, aside from the reality TV show articles are guilty of this – but the reality TV shows are among the worst offenders. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

is that a "no" on the "can you please provide an example"? OZOO (t) (c) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking about the episode summary, I have no opinion on GUtt01's original question. But I trust what Gonnym has to say below, and suspect that that's the best answer here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with IJBall in that so many reality pages just run wild with stuff other articles would have never been able to get away with. But let's talk about this specific issue. While I'm personally in the opinion of don't put spoilers in the lead of an article, plot summaries are ok, as they are meant to tell you the story. Here I feel the ending is a bit vague of who got fired at the end of the episode. Having said that, the version #1 linked isn't the one I'd pick as it just has too many little examples that are just not needed such as one example Ultimately, the girls' team lose due to significant fines after arriving late at the airport and failing to find all items, and Sarah is fired due to her aggressive attitude, which caused Lord Sugar to doubt her capability of progressing in the process. So the current one looks better, but it should mention who was fired. Regarding the chart, the problem I have with these is that a lot of time they don't really add any value, as they are just posted, not discussed in anyway and never have any references to them. Then you also have the fact that they end up being half empty The Apprentice (UK series thirteen)#Performance Chart. The smaller one in the "infobox" is much better in that it lists the important information - who got fired in what week (though that one has its own issues). --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.... When you mention that it should include who was fired, should it remain neutral in tone? It's kinda tricky to determine how to do it. Gonnym, in your opinion, how would you approach that matter in the summary? GUtt01 (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the neutral point issue. It's not a judgement of her character but an episode fact When all return to the boardroom, the totaling of costs and fines reveals that one team's lack of co-ordination and negotiating skills was costly, resulting in the firing of Sara - I used "firing" as that is the term used by the series right? It could be "elimination" as well, it doesn't really matter. --Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I do feel that our summaries for series like the Apprentice or Survivor are far too long and go into extraneous and possibly OR details about why a person was fired/voted off/etc. from the competition. Detailing whatever challenges there were for that week, which team/player won or lost, and other objective results are fine, and summarizing this via tables is fine too. (The articles for The Amazing Race 1 (for example) stick to this.) --Masem (t) 16:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Tamil soap operas

Should this article exist?: List of Tamil soap operas present airing. Seems like it's just an extension of List of Tamil soap operas. Both were created by Arnav19, an editor I had major competence issues with. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably no – but it could be a separate section at List of Tamil soap operas. That would make sense... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

No. I don't think any other genre has something like that. Most countries don't even have a list for their own and share List of soap operas, so really no reason for Tamil to have 2 different pages for the same topic. --Gonnym (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Japanese episode list

So, now that {{Japanese episode list}} has been merged with {{Episode list}}, for the very reason I proposed the merge, we now have a number of accessibility and formatting issues to fix in usages of the Japanese episode list. The following tracking categories have all become repopulated with usages of the Japanese episode list:

• Category:Episode lists with invalid top colors (empty)
• Category:Episode lists with faulty line colors (17 fixes required!)
• Category:Episode lists with non-compliant line colors (6 fixes required!)
• Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates (11 fixes required!)
• Category:Episode lists with incorrectly formatted alternate air dates (3 fixes required!)

I plan to go through these to fix them all, but if anyone wants to give a hand, it'd be greatly appreciated. I typically use a number of my scripts to empty these categories. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Just linking to the relevant TfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

In light of this merge, how do we handle non-English character titles?... I'm thinking specifically of Stitch & Ai here – what the proper way to hand the "Chinese title" part now?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

YouTube TV shows

Quick question, should the TV Project template ({{WikiProject Television}}) be added to YouTube TV show article talk pages? Govvy (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say yes. YouTube Premium is a streaming service, similar to Netflix. The articles List of original programs distributed by YouTube Premium and Web series are already tagged with the project. If we tag web series, which were released on "traditional" streaming services such as Hulu, Netflix, DCU, then YouTube shouldn't be any different. Regarding the "regular" YouTube series I'd still say yes. If a regular YouTube series (not channel) is notable enough for an article, then there really is no difference between that and any other series. The manual of style should also be almost exactly the same (if not the same), as they are both "series" that just differ in the medium - but again, so is a network show vs a cable show vs a streaming show. --Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

k, some YouTube articles I've noticed haven't got the TV project, so wasn't sure at first, when I come across these articles again will add the project template. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Annie Wersching#consistency for access dates and archive dates

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Annie Wersching#consistency for access dates and archive dates. Joeyconnick (talk) 06:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"List of programs broadcast by (network)", etc.

It is my opinion that these typesof articles – "List of programs broadcast by [network]", "List of [network] series", and "List of [network] original films" – violate WP:NOTAGUIDE, particularly the former two, and while I don't think a consensus could ever be formed to outright delete all of them, I think we should heavily limit what we list there. In the case of "List of programs broadcast by [network]" and "List of [network] series," there is really no different other than the latter having upcoming series highlighted in a yellow and therefore the two are virtually duplicate content. Why some networks have these two pages rather than just the former is beyond me.

My opinion is that we just have only one page for each network, with that page listing series and original films. Furthermore, we should restrict the pages and only list current and upcoming series. There is really no need to list former programming and all that other stuff, especially when a lot of networks will rerun former series for a while, then stop reruns, then bring them back for a little while, and so forth. It just makes everything messy. Additionally, we would just list everything current or upcoming in a single section for each respective category (animation, live-action, etc.), as there is really no need to further separate by whether something is acquired or not or whether something is scripted or not, and stuff like that can just be mentioned in the notes. For films, it would be slightly different, in that we would just list all of a network's original films, upcoming or former.

Depending on what a network has, the general layout would look something like this

[Lead] – This is a list of current and upcoming television series and films that have premiered or will premiere on [network] in the United States.

The content under each section below would be a table that looks like this:

Title	Premiere date	Current season	Notes
123	February 8, 2014 (2014-02-08)	4	Renewed for a fifth season on June 30, 2018.
456	January 1, 2015 (2015-01-01)	3	Canceled after three seasons on June 2, 2018.
789	November 24, 2017 (2017-11-24)	2	Acquired series.

[Section 1] – Current series

[Sub-Section 1] – Animation: Includes all cartoons and preschool CGI that are currently airing.

[Sub-Section 2] – Live-action: Includes all scripted and unscripted live-action series that are currently airing.

[Sub-Section 3] – Game shows: Includes all game shows that are currently airing.

[Sub-Section 4] – Specials: Includes all specials that have aired. (Halloween, Christmas, etc. specials not from a series, but rather things like cast parties and the like. Also annual specials like MTV's music awards.)

[Section 2] – Upcoming series

[Sub-Section 1] – Animation: Includes all cartoons and preschool CGI that will be airing.

[Sub-Section 2] – Live-action: Includes all scripted and unscripted live-action series that will be airing.

[Sub-Section 3] – Game shows: Includes all game shows that will be airing.

[Sub-Section 4] – Specials: Includes all specials that will be airing.

[Section 3] – Current films: Includes all films that have premiered.

[Section 4] – Upcoming films: Includes all films that will premiere.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to limit it to first runs? Removing all former shows will just help the knowledge collected be erased, while adding no value. If WP:NOTAGUIDE had a "TV guide" bullet, I'd say that keeping only current and upcoming is exactly that. However if you limit it to first runs, then you actually have real value with that list. --Gonnym (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I would agree with this. List of programs broadcast by CBS should legitimately include all programming broadcast on CBS, both current and former, provided it is limited to "programs originally/first broadcast by CBS" (i.e. just those shows that were first-run on CBS). (You could argue that Category:CBS network shows plows the exact same ground, but a list like this would certainly seem to meet WP:LISTN).

Where you get into problems is articles like List of programs broadcast by Freeform, which then includes a bunch of shows that weren't originally first-run on Freeform/ABC Family, but were simply syndicated there. Those sections should probably be cut per WP:NOTAGUIDE/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Add: As you'd be limiting the WP:SCOPE of an article like this, a move of the article to a new title like List of Freeform series or List of Freeform original series might be warranted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC probably needed

Certain editors have been removing show lists from channel articles entirely – including upcoming, current, and former shows listed on the actual channel pages, not even separate "List of" pages which presumably need more justification – citing WP:NOTAGUIDE (and edit warring against anyone who dares to restore them, with admins entirely supporting this for some reason by blocking only one side of the dispute).

Furthermore, there is a long-standing "consensus" (among the tiny group of editors that seems to WP:OWN this project) that non-English networks shouldn't be listed on show pages. I've always thought this wasn't just a clutter thing, but editors actively trying to prevent this information from appearing on Wikipedia at all. Now my suspicions seem to have been proven correct: you are proposing to go the other way and remove the lists of shows from "non-first-run" networks (which in practice means mostly non-English networks, for very obvious reasons).

Yet every single time the "List of" articles (which, again, require actual notability!) go to AfD they are kept, except in very special cases. If I didn't know better, I'd say there is an incredible abuse of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS going on here, on multiple levels...

Enough is enough. I would start an RfC right now, but the problem is there is almost always near-zero participation. Can someone suggest where and how to do this so there is a decent number of opinions in the discussion for once, preferably from outside the project as well? Modernponderer (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Modernponderer, WP:PA isn't going to get you anywhere. -- Alex^TW 00:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian, please strike your comment. Attacking the actions of unspecified groups of editors cannot be a "personal" attack by definition. However, accusing someone of a personal attack when it is obvious there was none is a personal attack in itself, so please remove it. Modernponderer (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Modernponderer, I will not. WP:PA states nothing about it only applying to individuals; falsely accusing anyone, individuals or groups, of OWN is a personal attack. Your PA has been noted; if you would like to strike your comment and revise it to be more civil, you are more than welcome to. -- Alex^TW 13:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm new to editing but after looking through this page and the edit histories of a few users Modernponderer (talk · contribs) opinion of ownership of project seems valid so did definitely not personal attack AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs), amoung others. You are not helping the situation with your condescending tone and lack of actual discussion of content.. HumansFan (talk)

Interesting, I thought you only came around to oppose me with your very first edit here. (If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...) How have you contributed to the project to know this to be true? Or is it based only on watching other people? If you want to discuss actual content, then I recommend you actually do that instead of "telling off" other people by doing the same thing. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

i have made public contributions. sounds like another personal attack in the same section to different users. not welcoming. I created account to vote there as i obviously like humans and dont want it to be mess like you obviously like doctor whoHumansFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Duly noted, thank you. -- Alex^TW 14:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian, repeated (let alone enforced) violations of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS are WP:OWNERSHIP by definition. Furthermore, my statements here are compliant with WP:AVOIDYOU. Yours are not, so please strike them out. Modernponderer (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Modernponderer, I will not. Thank you for your opinions. -- Alex^TW 13:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Viewers Television Awards

Input, counter-arguments appreciated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian Viewers Television Awards. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:List of Darkwing Duck characters

So within the past week, I started a couple of sections (#How should the listing of guest stars be handled? (Fictional characters) and #List of Darkwing Duck characters#Merge proposal) talking about fixing the disaster that is List of Darkwing Duck characters. Today, I've started up a draft. The draft version excludes sections such as "Other characters", "other heroes" and "other villains", since most of these were one-off instances anyway. I also removed the 90 something references to the TV episodes since it was making the prose unreadable (almost the whole article is sourced to the show anyway). The draft could definitely use more work, but what I've done is a starting point for now, seeing as removing the 'other' character sections and the mountain load of references are the only major changes I've made thus far. Hopefully with some work on the draft, the disaster that is this character list can be cleaned up.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 08:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely seems better, though even in its current form, it's probably too much material to merge back to Darkwing Duck. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 11:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Well, that's why I said it still needs work. Merging or keeping this article will certainly depend on the result of this draft discussion (and the corresponding merge discussion).—Mythdon 04:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally my policy has been simply to delete all content without (as I said above) a reliable, secondary source. For example, on List of Mass Effect characters, that resulted in First this series of changes, then these two, and finally this third one. Another editor or two chipped in and now we have the present-day article. It's much easier to deal with these kinds of articles when you start from the position that it's all WP:PLOT unless you have some source talking about the characters. In other words, I guess it's nice that you've removed the primary sources, and some of the trivial characters, but if it were me I'd go all the way and cut the article entirely, redirect to Darkwing Duck, and only resurrect upon reliable-sourced expansion there until a WP:SPLIT needs to occur. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Izno: Seeing as Darkwing Duck#Characters at present only lists three of the major protagonists, there needs to be a way to describe the major characters in some character list without going into WP:NOTPLOT territory. That said, more trimming could certainly be done, something which I fully intend to keep working on.—Mythdon 04:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Did some more trimming where I removed more one-off characters, original research and episode specific-details (that read "in the episode/comic") ([9] [10] [11] [12]). But if there's a way to include the one-off characters without becoming a mess, then I'm open to user:Masem's suggestion.—Mythdon 04:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

With that show, it should be one-off characters that are impossible to not mention in the episode they appeared in if you are trying to write a short summary of the episode. My memory of the show is vague so I can't give any concrete examples, but I'm sure one can make a distinction compared to minor one-off characters incidental to the plot. --Masem (t) 05:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps some of that content can be incorporated into List of Darkwing Duck episodes since it already lists some villains.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep episode references, at least for one-off characters and key character development details - this is to meet WP:V. You don't need to source any specific episode that Darkwing's alter ego is Drake Mallard , that's a fact repeated nearly every episode (and likely sourced to some secondary). --Masem (t) 04:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:TV opinion on List of Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom episodes

OK, WP:TV regulars: would you advise merging List of Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom episodes back to Ben & Holly's Little Kingdom – yes or no? If "yes", do you feel strongly that it should be merged back, or are you just "theoretically in favor" of a merge?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Two seasons is usually the trigger for a episode fork, and with 52 segments per season that might be a bit much to merge back. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Cyphoidbomb. Although I notice the parent article has the number of episodes listed as 131, but looking at the episode list, I only see a total of 104. I wonder where that additional 27 is coming from. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly support a merge. The whole "split at two seasons" was deprecated long ago (the related discussions resulted in what can be seen at User:Bignole/Episode page), and the parent article would not be too unruly or too long with the episode tables added back in, as it only has minimal content. -- Alex^TW 23:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't oppose a merge if y'all think that it's worth doing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories nominated for deletion

Category:The King of Queens characters and Category:The King of Queens episodes have been nominated for deletion. Comments at the CfD discussions would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 17#Template:S-Japanese episode list and Template:S-Episode list

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 October 17#Template:S-Japanese episode list and Template:S-Episode list. This discussion is to request the deletion of the deprecated templates {{S-Japanese episode list}} and {{S-Episode list}}; these are old sortable versions of {{Japanese episode list}} and {{Episode list}}. -- Alex^TW 12:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Smallville

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Smallville#Links in sub-headings regarding using links in sub-headings of nav-boxes. Matt14451 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts on using Template:Television ratings graph in a season article?

I recently decided to add {{Television ratings graph}} to the article Doctor Who (season 1), as I figured it was an effective way to visualise the season's viewing figures without listing each number in prose (see here for my usage). However, since my addition was reverted, I figured I should discuss it here. What are your thoughts on using {{Television ratings graph}} in a season article such as this, where 42 episodes span across eight different serials? – Rhain ☔ 11:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

As explained, the use of {{Television ratings graph}} has been rather contentious lately, hence the need for a discussion. If there was a noteworthy change between episodes, then perhaps some sort of graph (not necessarily this one, there are many) could be necessary. However, a number of issues arise from the use of this template for this particular example. The numbers do not match to the numbering scheme of the classic era of Doctor Who; yes, the number of episodes listed is 42, but for example, "The Warriors of Death" is not listed in any article as the 25th episode of the season, simply as the sixth serial's second episode. If I said "what is the 35th episode of the season", that is not the same as something more recognized as "what is the final episode of the fourth serial", the more common usage in outside sources. The average viewer numbers for each serial are unsourced. Beneficial use of it for visualization is decreased when ratings didn't change for multiple consecutive episodes; a graph isn't needed to show me that the rating of 6.9 million for "A Land of Fear" is the same as the rating of 6.9 million for "Guests of Madame Guillotine", which is the same as the rating of 6.9 million for "A Change of Identity". -- Alex^TW 11:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the episode numbering scheme, but I found no way of removing this from the graph, so any alternative suggestions would be appreciated. I figured average viewer numbers fell under WP:NOTOR#Simple calculations and WP:AVRC, but I could be mistaken. I think there's enough variation in audience numbers to warrant the table—five consecutive episodes receiving the same ratings should not immediately discredit the other episodes. The table helps to visualise the peak of viewership in the first half of the season, particularly some of the big jumps. – Rhain ☔ 12:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think tables are better than graphs for displaying ratings. See the ratings table for Grey's Anatomy (season 13). That table displays pretty clearly the drop in viewership between episodes 10 (9.59) and 21 (7.02), just like the table for Doctor Who (season 1) displays pretty clearly the jump in viewership from "An Unearthly Child" (4.4) to "The Ordeal" (10.4). Not only is the variation in viewership just as easily conveyed in a table, but the exact number of viewers can actually be displayed in tabular format as opposed to a graph. If there needs to be a separate listing for ratings, I think tables are the direction to go, but since the 40 something episodes of Doctor Who (season 1) are conjoined into just 8 cells, I think things are fine the way they are now and a separate section for ratings (in that particular case) is unnecessary. Usage of a graph may be nice and dandy for some people, but overall, I think they're superfluous to the already existing (and more useful) tables. In other words, visualizing these things does nothing more to convey changes in viewership than by enumerating them. —Mythdon 04:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I find the graphs a lot better for judging how substantial a drop or a jump in viewership is and I really can't imagine anyone who doesn't. It's not intuitively obvious to me that a 4.4 to 10.4 jump is a 136% increase (and I study maths!), but I could give you a ballpark figure somewhere around that number if you showed me a bar chart (it looks something like double and then an extra third). But anyway, this really requires a wider consensus, rather than rehashing this out for dozens of individual cases. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it common for there to be such big jumps in ratings between episodes? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is, but I was using an example from the person I replied to. I would have made the same argument for any jump up or down of at least a quarter, and it's worth noting that a graph allows users to immediately identify where the biggest jumps are, whereas it would take a while of staring at a table, even in the most obvious cases, to work that out. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the only time graphs should be used is for cases like List of Seinfeld episodes#Ratings, which shows the changes in viewership over nine seasons. Although that slightly contradicts my previous comment, it's not like with the episode lists for individual seasons which mostly only show gradual changes over a span of a few episodes. —Mythdon 03:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I think graphs are much better for showing ratings, either within a single season or across multiple seasons. Numbers are harder to read because you need to scan across all the numbers carefully, while you can see from a single glance in a graph what the trajectory of the season ratings is. A graph should not replace a table though since some people might want to see the exact numbers. Hzh (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I think the way ratings are shown on Wikipedia needs to be evolved in some way. For example why do we need 18-49 demo numbers for premium cable networks like HBO, Starz, Showtime? They don't have commercials and they certainly don't care about this demographic. They have always renewed based on Live+SD viewers(Including +3, +7) and streaming. Showtime have been heavy with their PR releases about their new comedy Kidding and have put extra emphasis on how well it performs on non linear platforms. I don't really care about adding the 18-49 demo for show pages on these networks, I'm just saying they're not that important. Esuka323 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

RTitle

Hi all, can anyone link to the policy/MOS/whatever that says references shouldn't be included for episodes that have aired, only for future episodes? I keep getting reverted on The Apprentice (UK series fourteen). Thanks. Matt14451 (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Whoever is telling you that is wrong. Sourcing should be included for anything that cannot reasonably be covered under WP:PRIMARY – that's all airdates, and for most shows it also includes episode titles and prod. codes. IOW, the latter need to be sourced. Period. That's straight out of WP:V, which is a site policy. Now, that said, a lot of that can be handled with a 'column source' in the episode table rather than as an 'RTitle' source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, so references should be included for all episodes regardless of whether they've aired? It seems like standard practice to remove the references once the episode airs. Matt14451 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The practice formed because once an episode airs, it becomes a WP:PRIMARY source. The problem is that it's only good for credits, and that's it. Occasionally, series will have the episode titles incorporated into them, but outside of animation, that is pretty rare. However, generally speaking, episodes cannot verify titles and most definitely cannot verify original air dates. As such, sources for those stay, and it's why we use column sources. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes – specific episode (i.e. "row") refs can/should go after an episode airs, but there should also be column sources for airdates, and for titles and prod. codes where necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see column sources used very much on TV pages, and people generally remove the Rtitle source when an episode airs. I see this on virtually every broadcast television and most cable tv pages. I speak as someone who has edited on probably over 100 tv pages this year. Esuka323 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE. Basically, this practice is WRONG. Airdates MUST be sourced. WP:PRIMARY doesn't cover this, as Amaury says. WP:TV has been very wrong about this for a very long time. And it needs to change: WP:V >> MOS:TV practices (which are wrong). --IJBall (contribs • talk)

It is, nevertheless, still standard practice to remove the sources after airing, and another discussion would need to be held to change this and actually make it concrete. However, as you said, this can be solved through the use of column references, and thus, they can be both removed from the row and still be sourced though the header. -- Alex^TW 01:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Right – that's all that needs to be done. As I said above, the "row" refs can be removed after episodes air, because they source things like directors and writers which are covered under WP:PRIMARY. But airdates, and for most shows episode titles and prod. codes still need to be sourced – and the best way to handle that is with a column source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There's likely thousands of articles that are going to need column refs, if this ends up becoming a requirement. -- Alex^TW 01:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

"Requirement"? We can't really "require" anything on Wikipedia. But, "highly advisable"? Sure! (Though, even here, there's a caveat – plenty of older TV shows simply won't have any sourcing available for things like airdates... But where sourcing is available for that, then it's certainly vastly preferable that it be sourced.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ewing family (television)

Posting this to WT:TV, to get more eyes on it... This should be at Ewing family (Dallas), correct? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the WP:NCTV character section, then yes. --Gonnym (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Doctor

Can a few other editors please keep an eye on Doctor Doctor (season 1) and Doctor Doctor (season 3)? We have an IP, that, without any specific reason, is changing the articles' uses of {{Infobox television season}} to raw Wikicode (see [13][14]). Cheers. -- Alex^TW 01:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment from the IP here. Apparently, the only reason they're changing the template to raw code is because of the terminology used. -- Alex^TW 01:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Attempting to reason with that IP editor doesn't really achieve anything as they seem to have an agenda when editing on Wikipedia. They would rather war than take the matter to a talk page, as evident on numerous television pages over the course of this year. Frankly how they're able to edit here still is nothing short of astounding considering the number of times they've broken 3RR. Esuka323 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone reported the IP to AN3? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not for this particular case, but I could ping Ad Orientem, who blocked the IP last month for disruptive editing and edit-warring, and they now seem to have gotten straight back into that behaviour after their block expired. -- Alex^TW 08:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

In situations like this, where an anonymous editor is persistently disruptive and fails to get the point I tend to be fairly aggressive with warnings as it provides a warning history and makes it easier for admins to see exactly what they've been warned for. Some editors don't get enough warnings and they just go on for a long time. I've had a look through this editor's history and I'm surprised there haven't been more blocks. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I've had multiple run-ins with the editor, many of their edits include WP:OR on production codes. Looking at their talk page, they're received a pretty heavy number of warnings and they ignore them all. If Ad Orientem is able to help, that'd be great; if not, I might put together a list and file a report. -- Alex^TW 13:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you'll probably want to take this to WP:ANI, because it sounds like you're going to want to ask for a longer-than-usual block for an IP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that will be what happens, likely in the not too distant future. The IP can't handle not getting their own way on television pages and it's only a matter of time before the next issue. Esuka323 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Final Warning issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

X Factor (Russian TV series)

The "article" X Factor (Russian TV series) is basically a Disambiguation page, right? So it should be tagged with {{Disambiguation}}, yes?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a disambiguation page basically, shouldn't be included in navbox either. Matt14451 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And agree about the navbox; the three shows should be there instead. --Izno (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it should probably redirect to X Factor (disambiguation) if not to The X Factor (as the primary DABTOPIC). --Izno (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The three Russian versions are not currently listed at X Factor (disambiguation), and they don't actually seem to use the "X-Factor" title, so I'm at a loss... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

If you want to have them on a DAB page, that's easy to work around with e.g. "The Russian X Factor, known as X Factor" or some such. That they aren't name X Factor kind of lends itself to a redirect to the DABTOPIC page at X Factor already. --Izno (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Kompas (and other shows) Part 2

So the editor from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 27#Fokus (Indosiar news program) has continued with same style of editing. Liputan 6 was reverted back from draft to main namespace, Kompas (tv program) was recreated (as Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program) was protected from being moved back, he just added a pseudo redirect instead), as were new articles such as INews (news program) (notice presenter blue links are all non-en.wiki links) and Sergap (TV program). Can't even tell what is notable or not from the spam of list of presenters and segments in each one. Pinging previous discussion participents @AussieLegend, IJBall, AlexTheWhovian, and PaleoNeonate: and also @Amakuru: who page protected Draft:Kompas (Kompas TV news program). --Gonnym (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, last time this happened, I let Amakuru know (at User talk:Amakuru#Kompas (news program)). This is clearly Disruptive editing, and merits immediate deletion and a block from an Admin, IMO. If that doesn't happen, I would simply move these to Draftspace and let that process play out, though the last time we did that this editor simply moved them back to Mainspace... And if that happens, a block will definitely be in order IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Perry Mason cast members

I'm quite sure I know the answer to this, but I'll ask anyway – List of Perry Mason cast members should be nuked as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, yes?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

At its current form? I'd say it's useless. It doesn't even mention the role the person had. I'd say that a list for that shows that is in a format that matches other good quality character list articles would be nice, but this isn't it. --Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Legends of Tomorrow about what to list Matt Ryan as

Over at Legends of Tomorrow there is an ongoing debate on whether Matt Ryan is considered a main character or not. Intial news reports indicated that he would be a main cast member for the 4th season. But in the two episodes that have airred, he's credited as "Special Appearance by". JDDJS (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• The actual discussion is here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Rome episode nominated for deletion

{{Infobox Rome episode}} has been nominated for deletion again. The discussion may be found here for anyone interested in participating. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Splitting Episodes

It has been suggested a broad consensus be reached for splitting episodes to their own article at Talk:Taskmaster (TV series). Matt14451 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we already had it and that's why we have WP:MOSTV#Multiple episodes. 17:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Television tracking categories and lists

Hey all. Just thought I'd post these links here, list of articles that need updating to meet the standard practices of our WikiProject, in case anyone wants to help out with emptying them at any point

• User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes has over 9,000 articles using {{Episode list}} and {{Episode list/sublist}} (and by extension, {{Japanese episode list}}) without using {{Episode table}}; i.e. episode lists that still use raw wikicode tables.
• Category:Pages using infobox television episode with incorrectly formatted episode list has over 4,000 articles using {{Infobox television episode}} that still use the the format of |episode_list = [[SHOW (season 1)|''SHOW'' (season 1)]]<br>[[List of SHOW episodes|List of ''SHOW'' episodes]] , rather than the simpler format of |season_list = SHOW (season 1) |episode_list = List of SHOW episodes.
• Category:Infobox television season articles that use the season name parameter has over 2,000 articles using {{Infobox television season}} that still use the format of |season_name = SHOW (season 1) and manually linking |prev_season= and |next_season=, rather than the simpler format of |show_name = SHOW |season_number = 1 and allowing the previous/next seasons to be generated automatically.

-- Alex^TW 07:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for collecting TV maintenance categories. I fixed a few of the episode list one yesterday. Matt14451 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Have we got a consolidated list of all the cats anywhere? Two that I have to continually empty are:

• Category:Pages using infobox television season with unknown parameters
• Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters

These can have 5 or more articles added each day, primarily by Indian, Pakistani and other Asian editors who never seem to read instructions and just make up fields. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, not a list, but I've placed all tracking categories (except the one in Alex's userspace) in Category:Television articles needing attention (and its sub-pages). --Gonnym (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got a list complied at User:AlexTheWhovian/Categories that I have linked at the top of the page so I can check and empty it often. I've noticed exactly the same concerning those particular editors/articles. -- Alex^TW 10:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Alex, is there a way to turn User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes into a tracking category that dynamically updates?... 'Cos I've gotten a number of those lately, but I generally forget to go to your page to update the list there. But if it were a tracking cat., I could simply remove the category from the article after fixing an episodes table, as I do when I fix entries in Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That'd be a great idea, but I'm not honestly sure. A tracking category could be added to the episode list module, but I'm not sure how to determine in the code if the episode table template has already been used or not, to add the category... -- Alex^TW 13:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If I recall, when the list was created in Alex's subspace, there was a reasoning why it couldn't be a category. Something with how it is checking if an article was indeed incorrectly formatted? Because isn't it just checking if the article has "Episode list" and then checking if it has "Episode table"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The other option would be for a bot to check, say, weekly, and update User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes accordingly. But "manually updating" that this isn't really working... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I might see if I can get a bot to go through and actually make the changes, based on, perhaps, what is included in each occurrence of {{Episode list}}, and generate the episode table code out of that... Because doing 9,000 articles by hand seems a bit too much. -- Alex^TW 23:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories by television series

Recently, two similar categories were discussed at CfD with opposite outcomes:

• Category:The King of Queens episodes (kept)
• Category:The Good Place episodes (deleted)

Both only had a "list of" episodes and an article on one of its episodes.

For musician categories, a bottom-up approach has been enacted in which an artist's songs and albums are placed in a "Foo songs" and "Foo albums", regardless of how many songs and albums the artist has released (considered an exception to WP:SMALLCAT as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"), and the general "Category:Foo" scheme is discouraged unless otherwise warranted (see Category:The Beatles, Category:Britney Spears). For television series categories, it appears a top-down approach is the accepted norm and I would like to get clarification on that here. This can then lead to a consistent categorization scheme for how and when seasons, episodes, and characters are categorized for any TV series.

For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).

Question How many articles on a related subject to the television should exist before a subcategory on that subject for the show be considered? Should a SMALLCAT exception be established for seasons, episodes, and characters by series?

For example, these all exist but should they be upmerged?

• Category:The Cleveland Show seasons
• Category:The Good Wife episodes
• Category:Veronica Mars characters

Thank you for your time. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

In my experience the general rule of thumb has been a minimum of 5 articles for a category, although I have seen some editors say 4. By contrast, the people at stub-sorting regard 60 as a minimum. The aim of SMALLCAT in saying "except" is to cater for more general categories, not cats aimed at specific targets like a single TV series. I opposed keeping the King of Queens subcats because there were only 6 articles for the entire series and that is barely enough to justify the single category that was created let alone the 2 others. That many cats makes it hard for readers to find directly related articles. It's like having a real filing cabinet and having a folder for each item that you put in it. A lot of TV series have a single article and some have only two. SMALLCAT should most definitely have an exception since common sense clearly doesn't work. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, SMALLCAT aim is to avoid small categories, especially those that aren't likely to grow. Category:Traveling Wilburys albums, with only 3 articles and little chance for expansion, is considered an exception as part of an accepted sub-categorization scheme under Category:Albums by artist. My understanding here is that similar sub-categorization for TV shows should not be exceptions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, SMALLCAT aim is to avoid small categories, especially those that aren't likely to grow. - That clearly applies to The King of Queens and even many TV series that are still airing. TV categories should be allowed to grow naturally as most other category trees do. New cats shouldn't be forced on us as it doesn't help. If a series has a category and there are 5 episode articles then consideration should be given to creating an episode cat. The same applies for character categories. Common sense dictates that if all the articles in a category fit comfortably on one page then there's not a lot to be gained by splitting them into tiny categories just because you can. The TV project has had this issue with episode lists being split out far too early. Now we're more in tune with WP:SIZESPLIT. I completely agree with the deletion of Category:The Good Place episodes. There are only two episode articles and there is potential for more but it's completely unnecessary to create a cat at this time. Whether or not episode articles will be created depends on number of factors. If you look at {{The Big Bang Theory}} you'll see that there are episodes for seasons 1-8 but nothing for 9-12. There are far more for season 5 than any other season because one editor got keen and decided to create a whole pile of season 5 articles. This is not uncommon with TV programs. You can see something similar at {{NCIS television}}. By contrast, Two and a Half Men, which was a popular program, has articles for only 6 out of 262 episodes. When creating TV categories it's best to create the categories when they're needed, not just because they can be, as there is no consistency with how articles are created.

Regarding the examples you presented, The Cleveland Show has 4 season articles which, based on the organisation of the 106 related articles, seems to justify keeping Category:The Cleveland Show seasons although I wouldn't oppose an upmerge as the titles are unambiguous. That said, I notice that most of the episode articles are just redirects so they can probably be removed. A cleanup might even result in a few categories being emptied. Similarly, The Good Wife has an established tree so Category:The Good Wife episodes should probably stay. On the other hand, Veronic Mars has a single character article aside for the larger list of characters so Category:Veronica Mars characters should probably be upmerged. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you then agree with the statement above regarding the proposed criteria.

For any television series Foo, Category:Foo may be created when there are a significant number of related articles that would appropriately fit into the category. These could be articles or lists on individual seasons, episodes, characters, spin-offs, etc. Only when there are a specified number of articles on these seasons, episodes, or characters that exist should subcategories be created (ie. Category:Foo seasons, Category:Foo episodes, Category:Foo characters).

Say we set that specified number at 4 or 5, I can nominate a few existing categories with less than that attempt to set a precedent. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Lists of episodes

Taskmaster is a panelshow with 51 episodes. After this discussion, List of Taskmaster episodes was recently merged to Taskmaster (TV series), based on the main page's readable prose size and a blatant misreading of WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages. Is this following policy? If so, we need to start merging basically everything in Category:Lists of British comedy television series episodes. If not, the merge needs to be reversed. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The size of readable prose is more relevant than number of episodes, in this case it was 11 kb before merge and 13 kb now after the merge. Matt14451 (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No, exactly the opposite, because the list was composed of tables, which do not count a single byte towards readable prose. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Considering the length of many UK TV series, esp. the comedies, yes, it's quite possible that many of them have LoE articles that should be merged back to the parent TV series article. Now, that said, this isn't a "burning issue", so I don't think we need an "organized" effort to look into this. But, if others are found, a Talk page discussion on a merge proposal can certainly be opened to gauge consensus for a merge. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Help me to decide

Hello, I need help to decide something. There is a tv channel called Bangla TV, based on uk. Recently their owner started another tv channel in Bangladesh with same name. Both tv channel have same logo but their program are different. Should i create another article or should i include information about new channel in the existing articles? --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't answer that question (though I suspect the answer is "two different articles" if the new channel is covered in enough WP:RS's to be "notable"). But if you do go to two articles, you will probably have to move the UK one to Bangla TV (UK TV channel), while the Bangladeshi one will have to go at Bangla TV (Bangladeshi TV channel), as per WP:NCBC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on the notability of Joan Kelley Walker

Hi. Please comment on the notability of actress Joan Kelley Walker. Thanks! --Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

FYI. postdlf (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Friday Night Football (AFL)#Requested move 8 November 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Friday Night Football (AFL)#Requested move 8 November 2018. There are a number of Australian sports articles that are currently incorrectly/ambiguously disambiguated, so it would be helpful if we could come up with a consensus naming/disambiguation scheme for these articles. This particular RM is the starting test case, and right now it's too lightly attended to provide a solution. So more opinions added to the discussion would be good. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:One to One (TV series)#Requested move 19 October 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:One to One (TV series)#Requested move 19 October 2018. Issue is "TV series" vs. "TV program" vs. "talk show". Show appears to be similar to the Irish version of 60 Minutes. Need other opinions to break to current "non consensus" result. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes wording

I have started a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#ASOF that would affect pages under this project, regarding the application of WP:ASOF to RT scores in articles. Thoughts from those watching this talk page would be most welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Television credit database

Hi, can anyone recommend a database that is acceptable to cite in a Wikipedia article (since IMDb isn't) that includes credits from Television shows dating back to 1989? I'm looking for acting credits from 2 episodes of The Wonder Years and music dept credits from an episode of Once and Again. Thank you Artaria195 (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Artaria195: I don't think there is one – for this kind of thing, you'd have to rely on the actual credits from those episodes (as WP:PRIMARY sourcing...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thanks for your comment. Just to confirm, are credit listings from IMDb in fact not acceptable sources for biographical material in BLP articles? If you have a second to take a look, here's the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noah_K. I don't think that either credit are in the actual credits on the episode, so it seems that IMDb would be the most reliable source available in this case. Thanks, Artaria195 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

IMDb is not the source of the credit info, IMDb editors just transcribe it from the actual credits, usually fairly accurately, but they do get vandalized with fraudulent info at times. If a released film or episode is listed in an article, that film or episode itself is presumed to be a published reliable source that supports the credits info in Wikipedia and IMDb articles. If not released, need reliable sources and IMDb can't be used. IMDb is a convenience, trusted about as much as a Wikipedia editor who says they have watched the episode and transcribed the credits. The ultimate verification is still with the film or episode itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)