Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

"For the current season"

Just a heads up, I've removed a number of "For the current season" links at the top of television series articles. Including such links violates WP:TVGUIDE: "electronic program guide [...]. For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, [...] current schedules." Especially when such links are already available in the article. There's still more to remove per search results. -- Alex^TW 00:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with those style of links. I imagine a lot of readers search for the show, land on the series page, but are after the current season and find the hatnote useful (especially for reality shows). -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I also don't have a problem with them – while I don't think they should be common practice, I also don't really care if the reality TV shows use them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe that they clearly violate TVGUIDE, an actual policy. If the link is already included in the article, then there is no need for them to be a hatnote. -- Alex^TW 08:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it addresses this issue clearly. It says "broadcaster" as in, not listing NBC's 2018 prime time schedule (something 2018–19 United States network television schedule clearly does). It doesn't say that for an article on a series not to list it's current season (nor does it even address hatnotes). --Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The given quote is an example. The policy directly states that Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Directories, directory entries, electronic program guides. Linking the current or next season makes the article the definition of a program directory and guide. For what it's worth, this version is terrible - they linked the draft itself! -- Alex^TW 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That one is truely bad. I wouldn't link to a draft from the mainspace for any reason. But for the issue at hand, I disagree with it being program directory or guide (as those in the article linked, which are completely different). This is just a useful hatnote link that serve a required function. --Gonnym (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

How is it not a guide when "For the season, go here" is the first thing on the page? It's literally guiding you to the "current" article. -- Alex^TW 11:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Because being a guide is ok, it is not a TV guide, which is what the policy is talking about (which again, as can be seen by the image, looks like the tables in the article I've linked to). If it were talking about "guides" in general then we'd need to get rid of all hatnote templates and I'm sure you didn't mean that. --Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Also don't have a problem with it. I've reverted three of them for the time being pending this discussion. Also in my opinion something like this in such mass edits should've been discussed prior to being removed. But I'll just dropped what I left in my edit summaries: "1) "Broadcaster" in this sense would refer to the channel that the show airs on, not the show itself. A show does not / cannot "broadcast" itself. 2) This is not a "current schedule", it's a useful link to those looking specifically information about the current season. Schedule in this sense, would be "that airs on Friday at 9/8c"". Lastly, agreeing with Whats new? on I imagine a lot of readers search for the show, land on the series page, but are after the current season. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I imagine a lot of readers search for the show, land on the series page, but are after the current season. Yes, I imagine they are, but we're not here to make things "easy". We're here to list down content correctly. Do we add "For the current season, see List of Riverdale episodes#Season 3 (2018)", or similar section-linked content? No. To list the current season makes it a TV guide. (Also going back to the link that I missed, 2018–19 United States network television schedule is terrible as well.) -- Alex^TW 02:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

we're not here to make things "easy". We're here to list down content correctly. I think that's a bit harsh. Accuracy is important, but being user friendly should also be a consideration. A hatnote linking to a current season article is very different to linking to a section of a 'List of episodes' article, and is more common in unscripted programs where the season typically has little relevance to the previous one (new contestants, different challenges, etc). I don't see how a simple hatnote rises to the level of becoming a TV guide -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

It's more common, sure; doesn't mean it's accurate or valid. Both examples are linking to a region of season-specific content. User friendly, I agree - reader's first. However, duplicating links just for ease of access? Perhaps not. Else, why don't we duplicate all links, so that editors can get to articles quicker? -- Alex^TW 03:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This is where you have to use common sense and think about things logically vs exaggeration. We're not duplicating links in the sense of repeating the link multiple times in the same paragraph. For some articles the next closest link may be the series overview (after which the reader is taken to the list of episodes article, then has to click another link before being taken to the season article itself). What's the difference of having a link to an actor in the Infobox, and repeating the link in the cast and characters section but not having a hatnote at the top and another link later in the article??? If you want to go as far as removing all duplicate links should we remove all the actor links in the cast and character section (not suggesting this, just attempting to put it in perspective)? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In fact, it is quite common to have information duplicated in the infobox and the body of the article. Per WP:DUPLINK, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead".

Exactly my point. It appears to me that Alex is the only one who seems to have a problem with such links and they still haven't produced anything that addresses this directly. So unless there's anything else we're missing I think we've reached a consensus? TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have produced policies directly related. If there is indeed a consensus, I believe the line quoted in TVGUIDE (funny how it's called "TV guide") can be removed. -- Alex^TW 05:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Should we also be nominating the "United States network television schedule" articles for deletion? -- Alex^TW 05:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is correct on this issue. I don't see how a hatnote to the most recent/current season breaches For example, an article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules,... which is what you originally quoted in WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The hatnote doesn't list a string of "upcoming events, current promotions" or a "current schedule". -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

On the "United States network television schedule" articles, WP:NOTTVGUIDE also states "...although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." which those articles would likely meet, but that's a side issue in any event -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote doesn't list a string of "upcoming events"; then "For the upcoming season ...". Another editor in this discussion was actually the one to suggest that the "United States network television schedule" articles are violations. I agree with them. -- Alex^TW 06:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is a separate point to the hatnotes you're also suggesting are violations. If you want to launch the latest in a long line of AfDs against them that's fine, but I'm still at a loss as to how the current/recent season hatnotes are violations? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote doesn't list a string of "upcoming events"; then "For the upcoming season ..." If this is your only problem then maybe we need to come up with when it's okay to include a hatnote. Perhaps only adding the hatnote after the season begins similar to how we only update the season number after it begins? TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

So did we come to a consensus that the hatnotes were beneficial to articles and readers. Just asking so that I can reinstate them on the articles that they were removed from. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's more accurate to say that there is no consensus that the hatnotes should be removed. On that basis, WP:STATUSQUO applies, and they can be restored... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on no consensus. -- Alex^TW 04:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay so then restoring for now and if consensus is later found to remove them we'll deal with that when the time comes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I restored a number of the notes before being accused of WP:HOUNDING by Alex (whatever though, I'm not here to fight that). But in respect, I've stopped and Alex "can and may" restore the rest "when they get the time" although, I suppose there's nothing really holding them to that so the notes may be lost in edit histories for a while. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

MOS:SECTION

So, I was reading MOS:SECTION recently, and under the guidelines for headings, it states that headers should be unique within a page (otherwise section links may lead to the wrong place, and edit summaries may be ambiguous). While reading this, I thought about how a lot of television articles (especially episode lists with ratings) don't follow this. For example, List of Riverdale episodes, which has two links to each of "Season 1 (2017)", "Season 2 (2017–18)" and "Season 3 (2018)". Given that we often request that editors follow our MoS as strongly as possible, shouldn't we follow other such MoS's? -- Alex^TW 07:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a solution that might work? Another bullet says Not redundantly refer [..] to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer. so using "Season 3 (2018) ratings" would also not be in line with that MoS. --Gonnym (talk) 09:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there's a "trick" than can be used, so that each header is "unqiue" for linking purposes, even if they're "visually the same"... I want to say that I saw a conversation about this in WP:VPT within the last month or two... Amaury may have been the one who asked the question, I'm not sure... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

There is; the third season's ratings is List of Riverdale episodes#Season 3 (2018) 2. However, the Section MoS still states that section headers should be be unique within a page, given that edit summaries may be ambiguous. -- Alex^TW 13:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't use an asterisk. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Asterisks should never be used in page titles and links just to make it unique, there's now clear consensus against that. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 00:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking more that a lot of editors have no idea of its purpose. Most editors have obviously never ever done any professional writing, and some have trouble writing even in basic English, so we really have to dumb some things down. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the obvious thing to do here, then, would be to "kill" the year in the header in the 'Ratings' section, and have WP:TVSEASONYEAR only apply to the headers in the list of episodes section itself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 153#A better way to handle headings with the same name. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Just from talking about section linking, I would agree with IJBall in that we just remove the years from those section headers. There's no reason to have them in the first place. The episode sections have them, and unless there was a second "season 1", I'm sure that an average reader knows what they are clicking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I could support that. If there's further support for it, I'd suggest tweaking the MoS to actually state this, instead of it becoming another unwritten "standard practice" (which we have too many of). My suggestions:

MOS:TVRECEPTION: The reception information should include broadcast ratings and critical response. For broadcast ratings, it may be easier to maintain seasonal averages for the main page, while the season and episode articles could contain a list of ratings for all the episodes. Lists of ratings on episode articles should be included under headers that state the season involved, without a year, to comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings in not having headers duplicate the episode table sections.

MOS:TVUPCOMING: And finally, once episode 12 aired on January 7, 2014, it would be changed once again to "Season 11 (2013–14)". Sections for ratings tables on episode articles should only include the season, not a year (see #Reception for more). -- Alex^TW 00:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Any objections on if I copied this into the MoS? -- Alex^TW 23:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No objection on my end. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

in not having headers duplicate the episode table sections - I'm not comfortable with this wording. The actual aim is to ensure that section headings remain unique. There's nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings about episode tables and this is likely to confuse some editors. As I said above, we have to dumb some things down and (attempt to) make it so that even editors with poor writing skills are not confused. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I get where you're coming from. How about in not having headers duplicate any pre-existing headers? -- Alex^TW 08:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That might work. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex^TW 13:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"television production" terms clarified

How might we clarify the meaning of the terms "television production?" From a production crews perspective there are two working production models commonly used that are different and yet use the same terms. Crews involved in live broadcasts, as in talk shows and sports events are of one type. Crews who produce content made for television broadcast as in dramatic episodic shows and films made for television, use their crafts in a much different way. One model is linear and the other non-linear, and those distinction have been around from the beginning of television broadcasting and documented in many related Wiki articles. The creation and production of a show made for television broadcast and it actual broadcast and syndication has distinct components. The task of an Executive Producer is different when he or she is producing the Olympics broadcasts verses a film made for television verses episodic films. The person scripting each works differently, as do the crafts filming. The most notable difference is in post-production where choices are made on what the audience see and the sound scape. May I suggest that we clarify by saying either "television film production" (meaning all production made in the non-linear mode or "television live production" meaning all productions shot and aired live. Filmedit48 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC) http://www.davidpublisher.org/index.php/Home/Article/index?id=33044.html

Standard practices

So, I've complied a list of the WikiProject Television's standard practices:

1. Do not add newly announced cast to a cast list before they have been credited in the series, just add them into Casting or prose beneath the cast list.
2. The removal of the RTitle source upon the airing or release of an episode (which I'm aware a number of editors disagree with, but it's an extremely common standard practice, hence its inclusion).
3. The inclusion of the "No. in season" column and season headers above episode tables only if there's multiple episode tables.
4. Two cells of information are required (e.g. Title/Date, Director/Writer) to display a row for an episode.
5. Not adding an episode synopsis until the episode has fully aired.
6. Listing viewers with 3 decimal places if haven't or rarely exceed a million, otherwise we always only use 2 decimal places.
7. When to split off to a separate episodes page; see User:Bignole/Episode page, which was created but never implemented.
8. An appearance in 3 or more episodes of a season means that the actor is character can be listed as recurring instead of guest.
9. Whether or not to add (recurring season 1; main seasons 2–4) and similar to entries in cast lists.

These are, as far as I know, all unwritten rules that we cannot quote or link to when questioned about them, which makes it hard to implement or execute them. I'm wanting to incorporate them somewhere into the Wiki, so that we can quote or link to when questioned about them. Any practices I've missed, or ideas on where to implement? -- Alex^TW 08:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to confirm there is a consensus for each first. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Whats new?, confirm there is consensus and whatever is agreed upon should be added to the TV MoS. No point in having "guidelines" that aren't in the guideline. --Gonnym (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. Even if there isn't consensus, these will likely remain standard practices as they have already for years, hence my listing of them. -- Alex^TW 09:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:TVFAQ would be good place. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose #2 (strongly), as it implies that sourcing is unneeded after an episode airs, which is wrong, wrong, wrong: just because something is "standard practice" doesn't make it right, and this is flawed "WP:TV standard practice" Numero Uno – in fact, the MOS should be revised to make it clear that airdates (and often episode titles) must be sourced even after an episode has aired. Oppose #6 as worded: it's not about "decimal places": it's about significant figures – ratings should never be reported beyond 3 significant figures, because Nielsen's numbers are only good for that (maybe!). Oppose #8: either the "recurring" status "bar" should be higher (e.g. 5–6 episodes), or it should be left as is – and considering the previous MOS discussion we had on "recurring", it should be left as is, as there was no consensus for quoting a "hard" number, outside of saying that 3 appearances probably wasn't enough.

In addition, I'd like to see the MOS "tightened up" in terms of "Guest cast" sections – we should only list guest cast if, 1) the episode appearance is listed (either episode title, or something like "S01E03"), or 2) it's sourced to a WP:RS – and preferably both.

Beyond that #1, and 3–5 seems like good ideas that should be added. #7 needs more work, IMO, to make it concise – and even then it should still be somewhat "loose", perhaps mentioning a "range" of episodes (e.g. "split after 50–70 episodes, and only then if there are substantive prose episode summaries", or something). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nielsen aren't the only ratings used, e.g. BARB is used for UK TV ratings and they report ratings more specific than three significant figures for some shows..Matt14451 (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost certainly doesn't matter – I don't know how BARB collects their figures, but if they use a "sample" to represent the larger audience like Nielsen does, any sig fig's beyond 3 are utter dross, and are meaningless. Nielsen often reports more than 3 sig fig's too, but those figures are also for crap. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I know you oppose #2, that's why I added the note, but it remains an extremely common practice, hence its listing. And I'm just listing what appears to be standard practice here - 3 sig figs, 2/3 decimal places, same thing, word it to your heart's content. -- Alex^TW 13:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

We should not be listing "common practices" that are wrong – WP:V trumps every MOS we have, including MOS:TV. As has been pointed out again and again, WP:PRIMARY never covers air dates, and for most shows doesn't cover episode titles or prod. codes either – that means that all of those must be sourced both before, and after, an episode airs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from. As I said: "And I'm just listing what appears to be standard practice here." If we need a consensus to make that a firm requirement in the MoS, then we do. If we don't, then we don't. (And I get why you changed from dotpoints to numbers, but please ask before modifying another editor's post next time. Thank you.) -- Alex^TW 13:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: And of course the simple solution here is to just use column sources. Then there's not even a need for RTitle and things are still sourced, as they should be. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There are scenarios where RTitle use makes sense – in those cases where The Futon Critic has an individual episode press release, that includes additional info such as the director and writers (and guest cast). But Futon doesn't have those for every episode of every series, and in those cases where there's not director/writer info for an upcoming episode, I would agree that an RTitle is not needed in that case, and a column source is fine... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@IJBall: Even in those cases, RTitle wouldn't be needed. All the RTitle parameter does is if you're referencing a title that's not in the column source(s), it makes it so the reference marker—for example, [21]—is outside of the closing quotation mark as to not give the illusion that the reference marker is part of the episode title, and that I believe is where the RTitle parameter originated from. Otherwise, for episodes with individual press releases containing directors, writers, and guest stars, you would just put the ref next to the credits and then remove it after the episode airs since then WP:PRIMARY applies. Example. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

RTitle is generally used as the "row source". Even in those cases where there's an existing "column source", I don't think it's a big deal if RTitle is used as the "row source" for that episode. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

RTitle is most definitely a row source. If a press release is given, and added through the use of the RTitle parameter, then is sources the title, director, writer and date (and any other credits included in the source and row). -- Alex^TW 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on 1, 7 or 8. On 2, I'm comfortable with keeping RTitle sources where they're available, just not making them mandatory or expected after airing, but don't see the value in removing them if they've been added. Strongly support 3 and 4. I don't really support 5 - much along the same lines as 2, if a synopsis can be sourced reliabily then I don't see why it can't be added in advance of airing (and Wiki contains spoilers). On 6, I don't know that it is necessary to mandate how many decimals/sig figs should be used across the board, and it should probably be based on a combination of available data and editor discretion. I'd also like to throw into 6 that viewership need not be rounded by millions when all or nearly all episodes are below 1 million viewers (for example, there's no need for ratings figures at List of Animals episodes to be written as 0.239 etc when "millions" is not relevant because no episode gets close - "239,000" would be better in my opinion). -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's starting to look like probably only #3 & #4 have the kind of "strong" consensus support you'd want to see before adding them to the MOS... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

♠On #2, isn't removing a source, no matter what Project SOP is (has been) a bad idea? Why encourage it--let alone endorse it?

♠On #6, shouldn't the viewership be a number in 1000s, with no decimals? That is (frex), 1,431 or 714, rather than 1.431 or .714?

♠On #7, does SAG say anything about when an actor is considered "recurring"? Should (shouldn't?) we use that standard, rather than invent one? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

On your point #2 – precisely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

If it is such a bad idea, then why is it executed daily, across thousands of articles, dozens of times a day, by hundreds of editors? If it is such a bad idea, then why do editors who disagree with it not revert the removing editors? Surely they should be enforcing the policies that back up the opposition against reference removal? -- Alex^TW 13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not how WP:V works. Period and end of story. Editors who remove references should be warned and sanctioned if continuing such behavior and I am happy to take any instances to WP:ANI, right now. It needs to stop. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Izno, then by all means. I'll await the link, as you said you're happy to. Do you need help gaining links to the thousands of affected articles, or? Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What's done is done. My concern is preventing further damage to the 'pedia by continued removal (by, I assume, regulars). I'm not looking to get people in trouble. :) --Izno (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Izno, I'm confused. You said you were happy to take any instances to WP:ANI, right now? Was it more of a threat? -- Alex^TW 23:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I can explain why that practice arose (and also why it's wrong) – basically, WP:TV editors are correctly paying attention to WP:CRYSTAL with this practice – all future content must be sourced! that is 100% correct – but are misinterpreting both WP:PRIMARY and WP:V with it. Essentially, while WP:PRIMARY absolutely does cover the WP:V part of episode's directors and writers, and guest stars, etc. (from the credits), as well as episode plot summaries, for most TV shows WP:PRIMARY does not cover episode titles (most TV series do not display the episode title on screen – shows like The Crown and Victoria are rare these days...) nor does it cover prod. codes (I think there's one U.S. studio that consistently shows the episode's prod. codes at the end of the end-credits, but the vast majority do not ever show the prod. code on screen in the credits). Further, no matter what, WP:PRIMARY can never verify airdates, as those are never shown on screen... So, anyway, WP:TV editors were paying attention to WP:CRYSTAL, and then when the episode aired were thinking "OK, WP:PRIMARY takes care of "all of this", so sourcing is no longer needed!" – from there, this just developed into a "lemmings following WP:OSE practices" as other WP:TV editors saw things being done this way and thought, "This must be how things are "supposed" to be done on this!" But, as has been said repeatedly, WP:PRIMARY does not cover everything in the episode tables, so in fact air dates, and usually episode titles and prod. codes still need to be sourced even after an episode has aired. So, yeah – this fact should actually be written into the MOS:TV to make this point crystal(heh) clear... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It should be added, if there's consensus for it. -- Alex^TW 13:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with "239,000" would be better in my opinion. A great example of this is List of Wentworth episodes. -- Alex^TW 00:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I mean, figures in List of Animals episodes should be rewritten as in Wentworth -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I'm seeing more issues with #1 (e.g. at The Rookie), so I really think we should add something about #1 to the MOS – even people who are "sourced" as being recurring in RS sometimes only end up appearing twice, and so aren't actually "recurring"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Support the newly-added 9 FWIW -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I oppose it. The cast list should just be cast; lengths and seasons can either be displayed through a castle table, or in the Casting section. -- Alex^TW 09:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Netflix Dracula

Just a heads up about the upcoming Netflix Dracula series and its respective articles. The series not yet gone into production, and thus is too early for a separate article, per the consensus of WP:TV on the early existence of series articles. The series now has links at Dracula (upcoming miniseries) and Dracula (2020 TV series) (both redirects to Dracula in popular culture#Television), as well as Draft:Dracula (upcoming miniseries) and Draft:Dracula (2020 TV series) (the current location of the draft with correct disambiguation). The number of links is due to an editor moving the article to mainspace locations with incorrect disambiguation despite a lack of production commencement. -- Alex^TW 02:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I’ve made a draft article for the series Gold Digger which shortly after creation was moved into mainspace by @Robberey1705: citing that the series was ordered. What I believe Alex seems to be confusing here is PRODUCTION and FILMING. The production is the series as a whole, where filming is when it starts being shot. Despite Alex stating it’s not, it IS in production, officially greenlit and is casting. Unless the precedent set by Robbery is incorrect, or if Alex needs to start using the phrase filming as opposed to production, I don’t see why it existing in mainspace isn’t allowed right now. Rusted AutoParts 02:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Principle photography has not commenced; the WikiProject Television uses WP:NFF as a guideline, as we were in the process of making a similar television-related guideline. Gold Digger does indeed need to be moved back to the draftspace. -- Alex^TW 02:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No Gold Digger does not need moving, considering it started filming. Rusted AutoParts 02:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Then the article needs to make that clear. -- Alex^TW 02:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Made it clear back in September. Rusted AutoParts 02:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:FILM goes by "has started filming" before a film qualifies for an article, as per WP:NFF, and WP:TV follows their lead on this. "Casting" and "production" does not guarantee that a series will actually go forward (I'd point you to Nicki (TV series) on this point, but the article was deleted exactly for the reason that a pilot was never filmed...). Therefore, I'm with Alex on this – until the show actually starts filming (as per WP:RS), the article(s) belong in WP:Draftspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless we have enough coverage to discuss an unproduced series (which is unlikely if all we have heard is that it has been ordered) then the basic approach should be to wait until it actually exists, i.e. filming has begun. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Gran Hermano 1 (Spain)#Requested move 1 December 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gran Hermano 1 (Spain)#Requested move 1 December 2018 . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Queen America#Guest stars and recurring

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queen America#Guest stars and recurring. — Lbtocth^talk 23:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Giant Robo (OVA)#Requested move 5 December 2018. This is a requested move looking to establish a consensus on how to name "OVA" series-type anime titles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Secret Story 1 (Portugal)#Requested move 5 December 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Secret Story 1 (Portugal)#Requested move 5 December 2018 . This move request involves a proposal to use a new disambig tag for article titles not currently in use by WP:NCTV. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Big Brother season templates

Template:Big Brother housemates, Template:Big Brother endgame and Template:Big Brother endgame2 has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television season. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Food Paradise

How should we split, and clean up, Food Paradise? Please join the discussion at Talk:Food Paradise#Page size, and help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 4"

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_December_4#1960–61_United_States_network_television_schedule_(Saturday_morning)), which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Levivich (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about wikipedia "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980–81 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)"

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1980–81_United_States_network_television_schedule_(Saturday_morning) , which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Levivich (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:The Big Bang Theory

Can I get some opinions on the layout of Template:The Big Bang Theory? We shouldn't be forcing templates to do what they're not designed to do, such as forcing empty sections with only a header link, because when a header link is provided but there's no content, the section hides by default. I have previously attempted to change the layout to be more user-friendly and in-line with the actual template:

• Special:Permalink/690240936 (Revert: "This is inconsistent with the rest of the template. Yeah, it looks a bit strange but that's because nobody has written any episode articles recently")
• Special:Permalink/726143416 (Revert: "Better to have two empty sections than duplicate headings for each season.")
• Special:Permalink/861114103 (Revert: "Looks unappealing to the eye; the standard is this.")
• Special:Permalink/872403405 (Revert: "This is a horrible format and doesn't make sense.") (the most recent change and revert)

Thoughts? Alternate layouts? -- Alex^TW 01:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Story 2010 (Greece)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Story 2010 (Greece) . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Survivor VIP (Israel)

Survivor VIP (Israel) appeared on my radar recently when it was added to Category:2019 Israeli television seasons which shouldn't exist yet as no episodes have aired yet in 2019, it still being 2018. I've raised that issue previously, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 19#Category:2015 television seasons but the categories keep getting populated year after year, months before any episodes have aired and well before the year has even started. However, that's actually tangential to this. There's not a single reference in Survivor VIP (Israel), just a lot of premature tables. I'd normally take action on this article myself but I'm involved in a discussion at Category talk:2019 television seasons#Speedy deletion request so I'd appreciate involvement/comment from others. There is also a comment from Katanin in an edit summary about better naming conventions for "these" pages,[1] so that is probably something that needs addressing as well. The previous seasons are named a little bit inconsistently. For example, Survivor (Israel): VIP is called "Survivor 10: V.I.P" in the lede and is stated to be the 6th season. I'm really not sure what is going on with this series. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The naming of the survivor articles (and not only Israel) is something I've already noticed but didn't have time as I was busy fixing a different reality franchise (Big Brother). Regarding sources, I've found [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. --Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: @Gonnym: I'm currently in the middle of overhauling the Israeli Survivor pages, and as part of this process I moved the first six seasons' pages to reflect the naming conventions that were used for the latest two seasons, Survivor (Israel): Honduras and Survivor (Israel): Palawan. There were several reasons for these changes: the first six seasons' Wiki pages were originally titled "Survivor 10: [subtitle]" (the series was originally referred to as "Survivor 10" because it aired on Channel 10) but that name was deprecated by the station after (I believe) one season; another is that the season names were occasionally mistranslated (e.g. the third season, Hisardut HaPhilipinim, which means "Survivor: The Philippines," was translated as "Survivor: Philippine Islands"). For the upcoming Israeli Survivor VIP (Survivor VIP (Israel), we don't know how they're going to differentiate it from the first Survivor VIP, which is at the page Survivor (Israel): VIP. Additionally, some of the Israeli seasons were added to Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style, but given all the aforementioned issues, I don't know what exactly the correct naming conventions would be. Would love some guidance and input on this. - Katanin (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Katanin: The problem there is that "Survivor (Israel)"-type titling is incorrect disambiguation under WP:NCTV – these titles should should either be based on a "Survivor: Israel" (if that was the show's actual title), or titles should be based on Survivor (Israeli TV series), as per WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So after looking at the sources provided by Gonnym and also quickly looking at the Israeli version of Survivor at Hebrew Wikipedia via Google Translator (mainly for their sources) and I can't find any indication that Israel was part of the name. While the show was on Channel 10 (Israeli TV channel) it did include "10" in the name which can be seen in the logos for the first season and the second season (to see the version of the logo with "10" I linked the Hebrew Wikipedia page as the English Wikipedia page for the second season omits "10" from the logo.) After Channel 10 lost the rights due to financial issues Reshet assumed the rights while they shared Channel 2 (Israel) with Keshet. [7] When the program moved to Reshet it was just known as Survivor [8]. So from my quick read of Hebrew Wikipedia and their sources along with the sources provided by Gonnym the parent article should be at Survivor (Israeli TV series). This also, inadvertently, brings English Wikipedia in line with a similar naming convention Hebrew Wikipedia is using which translates as Survivor (Israeli TV show).

However this creates another issue which WP:NCTV does not cover. If the parent article is moved to Survivor (Israeli TV series) then this will also impact Survivor (U.S. TV series) because there are a few seasons that share the same subtitle:

• Pearl Islands: Israel's second season , America's seventh season
• All-Stars: America's eighth season; English Wikipedia has the subtitle wrong for Israel's fourth season which is currently at Fans vs. Favorites which is a subtitle not in use by any of the American seasons. However the subtitle in Hebrew for Israel's fourth season is "אולסטארס" (see the logo on Hebrew Wikipedia's page) which translates to English as "All Stars" [9]. Also this title is supported by this article (see last sentence at bottom of article).

My suggestion on trying to fix Survivor naming conventions like the Israeli version would be to wait until Gonnym and I have finished with fixing Big Brother (franchise) as some of the disambiguation resolutions may need to be applied to Survivor articles. There is currently a RM open for the season articles for Secret Story (Portuguese TV series) since all the season articles are numbered. This RM is proposing the use of a new disambiguator of (<Country> season) which should clear up a grey area in WP:NCTV. If this proposal passes then we can proceed with fixing the Israeli version of Survivor by opening a massive RM to rename the season articles of the Israeli and American Survivor seasons with the new disambiguator. An example of how this would look:

• Survivor (Israel): Pearl Islands → Survivor: Pearl Islands (Israeli season)
• Survivor: Pearl Islands → Survivor: Pearl Islands (U.S. season)

Now as per WP:NCTV and WP:CONSISTENCY all season articles for both version would need to be moved to include the new disambig tag (if the current RM passes) but this is the only way I can see to fix the issue with what sources I have found so far and what Gonnym has provided. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: That all looks good to me! I don't think moving the main article to Survivor (Israeli TV series) is even controversial enough to require a WP:RM, so I think it should just be moved. But the two shows' "Pearl Islands" seasons? – I think I would send those through a WP:RM, because it involves moving one of the American seasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that last part: we won't need a WP:RM here either – looking at the page views, the U.S. "Pearl Islands" season is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so the U.S. season can stay where it is – we'll just need to leave the hatnote on it to point to the Israeli season, once we move that one... I look at the All-Stars situation later. The "All-Stars" situation is the same as the "Pearl Islands" one – U.S. version is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've gone ahead and boldly moved Survivor (Israel) → Survivor (Israeli TV series) – it had been in Category:Television articles with incorrect naming style for a long time, and this discussion pushed it over the edge into "it's time to finally move it". I'll try to get to the "season" articles later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't you just do

• Survivor (Israel): Pearl Islands → Survivor: Pearl Islands (Israeli TV season)
• Survivor: Pearl Islands → Survivor: Pearl Islands (U.S. TV season)

in a similar vein to disambiguating series articles? -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Whats new?: We could but like I mentioned this is one of the few grey areas of WP:NCTV which this RM about Portugal's Secret Story seasons is trying to resolve. I thought about both those disambiguators but ultimately decided to propose the use of (<Country> season) first because in British television the word series is used interchangeably. In the event there was ever an issue with British seasons this means the disambiguator would be the same for the series and season (UK TV series) which is why I went with the current proposal in the RM so that (UK TV series) could be used for the entire show while (UK series) could be used for the seasons. I would suggest proposing the idea over at the RM to see if other editors would prefer that over the current proposal. Whichever proposal gains the community consensus is the one we can apply to Israel's Survivor seasons. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 04:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As I've already shown, the U.S. season articles are the WP:PRIMARYTOPICs, and do not need further disambiguation (as per WP:TWODABS). It looks like only the Israeli season articles will need that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks IJBall the less we have to move the better lol. I agree with what you said earlier about the hatnotes btw. Although I thought about this some more and noticed that we may have another issue on our hands even when the RM for Secret Story closes. The sixth season has the subtitle VIP and according to the Israeli press the upcoming season due to air in January is using the same subtitle. So for those two seasons would we need to possibly disambiguate them like this:

• Survivor (Israel): VIP → Survivor: VIP (2012 Israeli season) or Survivor: VIP (2012 Israeli TV season)
• Survivor VIP (Israel) → Survivor: VIP (2019 Israeli season) or Survivor: VIP (2019 Israeli TV season)

If we do the merge before the season airs that is the only thing I can think of since the website hasn't been updated yet for the new season. Hebrew Wikipedia is no help in this case as they have the new season with the subtitle VIP 2 but I can't find any sources supporting this subtitle. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The former – e.g. Survivor: VIP (2012 Israeli season) – seem like the better bet to me. I don't think "TV season" is necessary, as we don't do that elsewhere (e.g. Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 27)). P.S. I think I'm likely to put in WP:RMs for the Survivor (Israel): Pearl Islands and Survivor (Israel): Fans vs. Favorites ones sometime this week, unless you beat me to it. But I will need you to comment on your research on the Survivor (Israel): Fans vs. Favorites one if I do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No problem IJBall I can comment with the research if you do the proposal. I agree with you there I don't think "TV" is needed in the disambig since we don't do that anywhere else. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment on the primary status of the US season. The main show itself is not a primary, as can be seen by Survivor (U.S. TV series) and I don't believe that sub-pages of a non-primary page can be primary of a topic. Even our current guideline support this with WP:TVSEASON stating If there are multiple shows of the same name, include the disambiguation, similar to the above for TV series in the season description, for example, "The Apprentice (U.S. season 1)" and "The Apprentice (UK series one)". Not following this with survivor is the controversial, non-consensus way. --Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not the same – these are "named" seasons: e.g. Survivor: Pearl Islands. With unnamed seasons, you have to disambig. everything, but here, you don't as it's a WP:TWODABS situation, with a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Anyone who has a problem with that can bring it up during the WP:RM, and propose that the U.S. seasons be disambig'ed as well. But I don't expect that position to gain consensus support because it's WP:TWODABS – it might be different if there were three (or more) TV show seasons with the title "Survivor: Pearl Islands", etc., but that's not the case here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I completely disagree. WP:TWODABS has never applied to sub-pages of a TV series - episode, season and list articles always followed the disambiguation style of the parent article. This is also not something unique to TV articles, but to all articles on en.wiki. WP:TVSEASON knows this which is why it explains what to do with when there is more than one season for a show with the same name - notice how it doesn't say "unless one season is the primary" (since of course that is not a criteria that exists).--Gonnym (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are free to make this point during the WP:RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the U.S. seasons fall under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that all Israeli season page names should share the (Israeli TV season) suffix, even if there is no other international season that shares its name (keeping them all uniform as per WP:TVSEASON). - Katanin (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 TV series)#Article title instability

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 TV series)#Article title instability. Should Les Misérables be disambiguated as (2018 TV series) or (2018 miniseries)? -- Alex^TW 14:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Formal requested move at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 TV series) § Requested move 12 December 2018. -- Alex^TW 07:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Input requested at Template talk:Infobox television#first_run fails WP:TRIVIA, and should be removed

Note that this issue has been raised before with zero participation, so I am avoiding the standard template message which has already been cluttering up this page. Modernponderer (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Update Episode Count Dispute

AlexTheWhovian & I are having an update episode count dispute. When did it became ok to update episode count BEFORE the new episode airing time? According to MOS:TV and (here) WP:TV, we don't update episode count until a new episode begins airing. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL — Lbtocth^talk 15:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I've never really liked that guideline as it isn't even consistently applied to all sections. If we look at The Flash (season 5) - the infobox, which follows the guideline says 9 episodes; The The Flash (season 5)#Episodes table has 10 episodes; and the List of The Flash episodes#Series overview table has 22. --Gonnym (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Episode Table and Series Overview have reliable sources to back-up. They are not the same as episode count (as in the # of air episodes). — Lbtocth^talk 16:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it is consistent. The infobox shows the number of episodes that have aired, the episode table shows the number of episodes that have been scheduled and the LoE page shows the number of episodes that have been ordered. They are 3 different things. At one stage we didn't list the number of episodes in the infobox until after the season had ended but there was a discussion (I'm pretty sure that I was one of the people who supported the status quo) and it changed to the situation that we have now which is that we only update episode counts after an episode airs. This is reflected in the instructions for {{Infobox television season}} which say "This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air." Rather than wait for the episode to finish some editors just can't wait to update the infobox as soon as the episode starts airing, when you think they'd be watching it, but we accept that's going to happen. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That is the definition of being not consistent. A casual reader looking at the article will see 3 different numbers and in none of those sections does it say that "9 (number of episodes aired)", "10 (number of episodes scheduled)" or "22 (number of episodes ordered)". --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

AussieLegend, I am talking BEFORE a new episode begin actually airing though, NOT airing or aired. WP:NOHURRY — Lbtocth^talk 17:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym - No it's not. When you're looking at three different things you can and should expect them to be different. That's not being inconsistent. When looking at figures you have to use a bit of commonsense but I do understand what you're saying, which is why I opposed the infobox change.

@Lbtocth - I know what you're saying and the infobox instructions say "This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air." Clearly, if the episode hasn't aired the infobox shouldn't be updated. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought if a new episode haven't actually started to air yet, it shouldn't be updated. I was told by many veteran editors that we don't update episode count until a new episode begins airing and before airing is not acceptable because it is not happening yet. — Lbtocth^talk 17:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: This dispute spilled onto my talk page, so I really couldn't help but have a look. For context, there was a new episode of The Flash yesterday, December 9, at 8:00 PM, though those on the West Coast with an East Coast feed could catch it at 5:00 PM. At 4:59 PM, the episode count was updated for the new episode; that was quickly reverted here as the episode hadn't technically started airing yet. That revert was then reverted here, and that's what seems to have led to this dispute. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I used to get reverted when I updated episode count BEFORE airing by veterans editors saying that we don't do update episode count until a new episode begins airing based on MOS:TV and WP:TV. — Lbtocth^talk 18:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like Alex was reverted because he updated the episode count a minute(Though most likely less considering Wikipedia doesn't record seconds) before said episode aired. That's absurd, I've seen plenty of pages where editors don't even bother to update for weeks if not months. I'm left to update(Though I often forget) when I'm adding the numbers for the cable show in question. How such a non issue has become an issue is ridiculous, at least someone makes the effort to update the episode counts. Esuka323 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Alex was reverted because he updated the episode count a minute(Though most likely less considering Wikipedia doesn't record seconds) before said episode aired. That's absurd Exactly my point, thank you. It was a matter of seconds; by the time Lbtocth had an issue with it, it was already well into airing. It's being pedantic to demand it exactly on time. I update 8/7c series at 11.30am my time - my clock was out by a few seconds, what's the big deal? -- Alex^TW 23:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Many programmes begin airing before the literal minute at which they are scheduled to begin. But even if you are certain that an episode has not aired in any location, reverting seconds before broadcast is not appropriate. Consider WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE and the intent behind the policy to update after an episode airs, not its exact wording. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilorv, I know I probably shouldn't have reverted. I am in the wrong in that. But, when did it became ok to update episode count BEFORE the new episode airing time? Because when I done that I got reverted by veteran editors. — Lbtocth^talk 20:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you update the episode count a minute or less before the show aired? If not, you had no place reverting. Exercising some common sense in this instance would have avoided any issues. Esuka323 (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have gotten reverted by a minute or less by veteran editors BEFORE. I admit it was wrong of me to revert him. But, what if it becomes more than 2 minutes and more BEFORE the new episode airs? 5-10 minutes earlier? An hour earlier? 3 hours earlier? A day earlier? Yet, I still get reverted for updating episode count BEFORE a new episode is airing. Again, WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and WP:NOHURRY. Where is the line drawn then? — Lbtocth^talk 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do provide examples of these instances occurring. Also, I highly doubt Alex would update hours, days, before an episode airs. And if by some chance another editor did, they would be reverted. You are basically making a huge issue of an editor updating something a minute or less earlier than you would have liked. Just stop, it's nonsensical. Esuka323 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't find them right now because it was a long time ago. I have not update episode count BEFORE airing time for a long time ever since I got reverted repeatedly. 1 minutes or less early is ok. But again, where is the line drawn then??? — Lbtocth^talk 21:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The question you're asking is "what's the minimum number of grains of sand in a heap?" and it's simply unanswerable. If you absolutely need a hard and fast rule you can always apply, try this one: do not update an episode tally until it has finished airing; do not revert another user's update if it is less than an hour until the episode's first broadcast. I won't respond to further comments on this topic because searching for a rule is a solution in search of a problem. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I even gotten reverted when the new episode is actually airing. See [10]. — Lbtocth^talk 22:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

By the looks of it, you updated 24 minutes early. I updated 24 seconds early (that's an approximation). I trust you'll no longer be reverting my such edits or waiting and watching for them, now that the same common sense I've posted on your talk page has been presented to you by further editors? -- Alex^TW 23:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian It was MOST Definitely NOT 24 minutes early on the example I provided. The episode premiered at 7:30pm Eastern Time and I updated at 7:36PM Eastern Time. — Lbtocth^talk 23:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Then the editor reverting you clearly made a mistake; that it not an acceptable reason to be disruptive in reverting on other pages. -- Alex^TW 01:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was an acceptable reason to be disruptive in reverting on other pages at all. — Lbtocth^talk 01:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

How about updating when the episode has completed broadcasting in its primary market? Then it resolves any issues of it being interrupted by other programming. For streamed releases, this should be as soon as it has officially released. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOF This a great compromise, but I don't think it would reach a consensus. Sadly. — Lbtocth^talk 00:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually, this was the intent of the instructions all along. A little bit of commonsense is needed. Is it essential to update before the episode has ended? There's no prize for getting in first, nor is there one for having the highest edit count. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline! If you're a millenial, consider putting your phone down for the length of the episode. I can guarantee you won't die. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not essential, but if it's possible, then it's acceptable. If you're a baby boomer, consider that not everyone has access to the series straight away (for example, an Australian considering an American series), but still try their hardest to keep Wikipedia up to date. -- Alex^TW 09:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hang on! Your user page says you live in South Australia, so how do you know the episode had aired when you edited? How did you know it hadn't been cancelled? I'm just curious. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Because I'm one of those clever millennials that knows how to keep up to date on series in other countries. -- Alex^TW 10:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, AussieLegend, Gonnym, and AngusWOOF for remaining civil and offering suggestions. — Lbtocth^talk 19:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So I just have a question about this. There is a discussion currently ongoing about replacing the existing Big Brother season templates with a nested module that would fit inside {{Infobox television season}} which will allow Big Brother articles to have the episode count in the infobox for the first time. At the rate the discussion is going it seems like the proposal will be adopted. In the case of the American version of Celebrity Big Brother CBS releases the entire schedule for all 13 episodes before the season airs. For the upcoming season the parameter |num_episodes= can only be updated after an episode airs even though there are plenty of sources with the entire schedule for all 13 episodes?? If this is the case this will most likely cause an unnecessary dispute with that article when it starts using {{Infobox television season}} instead of {{Big Brother housemates}}. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Alucard 16, As far as I know, we don't put the whole season of the episodes on the |num_episodes= on the season page even if it has been confirmed the number of episodes for the season. See The Flash (season 5), we don't put 22 episodes on it. On the Series Overview, you can with a reliable source. See List of The Flash episodes#Series overview. — Lbtocth^talk 00:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If the episodes of the whole season are released all in the same day, then you put all the number of episodes on the |num_episodes=. Such as like Netflix originals. — Lbtocth^talk 00:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lbtocth: I can understand the logic behind it but I can see a lot of disruptive editing with this for Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S.) if the discussion is closed as successful and the change is implemented before the season starts or while it is in progress. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Alucard 16, couldn't you request to get it page protected if the issues are random ip addresses doing the disruptive editing? — Lbtocth^talk 02:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Its not the IPs I'm worried about its already semi-protected until February 2, 2019 which is half way through the season. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Alucard 16, Begin a Talk discussion on the article itself? — Lbtocth^talk 15:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

UK Ratings

Do we use the 7-day or 28-day data from BARB? If a series of a long-running show has started before four-screen dashboard is available do we use the same data but from the new source? Ratings at Holby City (series 20) haven't been updated since September so quite a few episodes lack the data. The latest Doctor Who series uses a total 7-day data whereas the aforementioned Holby City article used 28-day TV-only data. Matt14451 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say we should use 7-day TV-only data in episode tables as this is the metric that's "industry-agreed" according to BARB - [11]. This would go against both examples above. Matt14451 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you bring this up because it's something I've also wondered. For new television, I have begun to prefer 28-day data based on their new four screen dashboard—that is, I also think online viewing should be included. With the increased viewership on catch-up services, whilst live television viewing (and even DVR viewing) are steadily in decline, counting views in the first month over all possible platforms seems to me to best reflect the popularity of a show in the modern day. To exclude views on, say iPlayer, is to systematically bias viewing figures in favour of older demographics (precisely the opposite of what the industry targets; hence why we have "18-49 rating" columns in lots of articles). Speaking from personal experience as an 18-49 year old, I watch two orders of magnitude more television on my laptop than on a television. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 17:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense, need to reflect all ages and modern viewing patterns. Be useful to get a consensus so we can make articles consistent, right now we've got 28-day TV-only and 7-day all-4-platforms used on the articles linked above. I only watch live news, everything else through streaming services. Matt14451 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Live +28 day ratings seem a little redundant. Most viewers watch a show within the first three to seven days, so the gains are negligible. Nielsen for example reports beyond the usual seven days, but press releases with +30 viewing from networks seem like, pointless. But I admit I'm not too familiar with UK viewing habits and my thoughts were more Nielsen related.

For example with Nielsen ratings, the C3 & C7 ratings are more important to networks, but they are generally at the same level as L+SD because people who DVR shows don't watch the commercials. I think if you're going to go with any sort of standard for UK ratings, you should go for the one that's more important. Esuka323 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I would think it best to use the most comprehensive data available, provided it is both reliable (which BARB is for any period). Data can be updated as further results are released (ie. add overnight ratings the day after, update with 7 or 28 data when they become available) -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source that most viewers watch within 7 days? I don't see a reason to not be as comprehensive as possible; we're not talking about "gains" here because the aim is not to big up a show, but to reflect most accurately how it did. I agree with Whats new? that we can be adding overnight / 7 day ratings where the 28 day data is not yet available. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Short of posting comparisons between +3 & +7 Nielsen numbers, much of what I've said was observation from what I've personally seen. DVR ratings are generally irrelevant to networks because they can't monetize those viewers because they skip the commercials. They're more used as a tool to negotiate syndication deals with buyers and PR fluff when a show is renewed. Esuka323 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If we're talking about viewership for an encyclopedia, then surely viewership should be as comprehensive as possible, not based on 'what networks care about'. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but networks can monetise PC, laptop and smartphone views, because viewers can't skip those adverts. (Not every channel has adverts in the first place; BBC is a public service broadcaster so there are no adverts during the programme to skip. We still obviously include BBC ratings in articles because they're still important.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I also believe L+7 is and should be the standard; it's certainly the standard I've always implemented. It's similar to the US L+7, hence setting up some sort of standard between the two countries and their ratings systems. Every Doctor Who season/series article always includes L+7, as it's typically the only reported statistic; I've never seen an article reported L+28 for DW. As for multiple screens, systems change, and so much we; the widely reported rating for "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" is 10.96, not 10.54 for television-only. If both are required, including overnights, then the layout seen at Doctor Who (series 11)#Ratings can always be used for separate season articles. -- Alex^TW 00:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

But if L+28 data exists, what is the argument not to use it? As you say "systems change, and so much we." Consistency between shows shouldn't matter for an encyclopedia. The most reliable, comprehensive measure of viewership should be published IMO. -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It can be used in a rating's table, but it shouldn't be used in the episode table, for consistency. Every US series article I've seen has always used the next day for ratings, and then L+7 is used in the ratings table. -- Alex^TW 06:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Every Doctor Who season/series article always includes L+7, as it's typically the only reported statistic: This was true until August 2018, when BARB changed their reported data. Hence why it's the standard on Doctor Who, because it would only be possible to use the four-screen dashboard for series 11. This isn't a reason to use L+7 in the future, for instance on shows which begin in 2018 or later. (I agree that we shouldn't conflate two different types of data in one table; or if lack of data means we have to, this needs a footnote.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect; Four Screens still provides the option for 28-day data. It's there in the initial selection: "Consolidation 7 days (C7) 28 days (C28)". When I say reported, I mean by reliable sources. I have not seen any reliable source report 28-day data for the series. There's then the serious error of adding 7-day data into the article, and then editors updating it to 28-day data when it's released, and you get a combination of the two. What episode is using what consolidation? This is not an equal way of displaying what is meant to be the same data. -- Alex^TW 14:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The same problem exists with overnight being changed to 7 day data. If an article is using 28-day data and one episode only has 7-day data, then add a footnote. There should be no mixing things up if editors follow a logical system, just as overnight / 7 day data can be mixed without issue. Four screens is precisely what I'm talking about, and BARB is the reliable source which reports ratings. (It's rare for UK sources to mention ratings in the way that U.S. sources do.) This is also a recent trend in the market so older sources using 7 day data / non-four screen data is not relevant. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Except that I've never seen a UK article list overnight data in the episode table, as it is unofficial data and not reported by BARB. What seems to occur in UK articles is that 7-day data is added to the episode table, which is then replaced with the 28-day data, not combined, and that's what I mean by mixing them - some episodes are 7-day, some 28-day. So, when you say that overnight / 7 day data can be mixed without issue, that's not what occurs in UK articles, or US for that matter, as articles on US series combine the data using {{Television episode ratings}}, and only overnight is ever used in the episode tables. US articles never have replacements occurring in episode tables for viewers. -- Alex^TW 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I would think that US series should have +7 data in episode tables where the data exists. After all, it should be for total viewership not just overnights when/if consolidated viewership exists. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

If you gain a consensus for it, certainly. However, I don't see that happening - overnights are the official rating for US series, unlike the "unofficial overnights" in the UK, and L+7 is for the "extra viewers". Just as L+7 is the "official" rating for UK series, and L+28 is for the "extra viewers". (Pinging Esuka323 as an editor who knows the most about ratings, they add the US ratings to dozens of series each day and week.) -- Alex^TW 00:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth a wider discussion at some point as to what a "viewership figure" should be. I think as more data becomes available, it is worthwhile updating and including larger data sets, especially as reliable sources report on catch-up figures more frequently nowadays. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm still failing to understand the problem with, for instance, having a column heading saying "Viewing figures" with a note reading "28-day viewing figures from four screens ([brief explanation]) except where noted" and then for any 7-day data, adding a note reading "7-day data". Certainly it's preferable to the nonsense approach in most articles of just having a column for, say, "U.S. viewers" or "UK viewers", with no timescale indicator or explanation of which devices are counted. I don't understand what makes L+7 "official" for the UK when the authoritative source on ratings, BARB, is reporting both L+7 and L+28, with no obvious emphasis on one over the other. If this is based on the previous most-commonly used rating then this is out of date since BARB's website reformation in August 2018. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is mixing different types in the same section. An episode table should only include L+7, or only include L+28. In any statistical means, different data should not be combined. The provided headers of episode tables are typically set as such because the consensus for US series is for overnight data only, the official US rating, and the general consensus for UK series is for for L+7 data only, the first official UK rating. As for what makes it "official" is what other sources report it as. For example, almost every source for "The Woman Who Fell to Earth" reported its rating as 10.96 million - that's the L+7 rating. I've yet to see even one (outside of BARB) report a value of 11.46 million, which is the L+28 value. Such means is far from out of date, because, as you said, BARB is reporting both L+7 and L+28. How they report it is irrelevant; they always have, they still are, and they likely will continue to always do so. -- Alex^TW 13:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Well here's a tweet from Dave that uses L+28 (without even clarifying the metric). What sources are you referring to? The key part is the date when they were written—were they written before or after L+28 was available? If the answer is before, then that doesn't provide any evidence because of course they can't use L+28 there! — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I should reword my sentence: I've yet to see even one (outside of BARB) report a value of 11.46 million, which is the L+28 value, once that value became available around 4 November (four weeks after the first broadcast). Also rewording what I've previously said, the official rating should be the first official rating released. In the case of the US, that's overnight; in the case of the UK, that's 7-day (as overnight in the UK are not official ratings). Extra ratings released after that point (L+7 in the US, 28-day in the UK) are extra ratings on top of what was first reported. -- Alex^TW 13:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Guiding Light

Moved to Talk:Guiding Light § Episode count

 – Topic seems more appropriate at the article Talk page.

Rfc

If interested, please share your opinion on the Rfc on Character Names in plot summaries. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

Articles for Deletion for Two Upcoming Episodes of the New Series Into the Dark

Thought I would make all who follow this page aware of the deletion discussion occurring over two upcoming episodes of the television series Into the Dark. The discussion is happening here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Body (Into the Dark).

CourtTV heads up

So, the American cable channel CourtTV, which has ultimately become TruTV, is set to relaunch in May 2019... as a "new" (old?!) cable channel, according to this article. So, IOW, TruTV will continue to exist, but CourtTV will now exist again as well!

Needless to say, this will be somewhat of a mess, necessitating a new article (eventually) at CourtTV (likely with a hatnote) rather than just the current redirect to TruTV.

Just posting this as a heads up to the denizens of WP:TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (TV show)#Requested move 16 December 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (TV show)#Requested move 16 December 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Neil Degrasse Tyson

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Text_proposals. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Accolades for television programs and actors

Hi all, what are the guidelines for adding television programs and actors to articles? At Bepannah and Harshad Chopda, there have been numerous attempts to add SBS Telebration Awards and Asian Viewers Television Awards, neither of which have articles at Wikipedia. One of the editors who added it in good faith wrote in defense: "Telebrations is an award show to appreciate ITV talent. It is held by ABP News which is one of India's leading news channels. It has been held for around 10 years. More importantly, fans vote for it. Secondly, AVTA is an Asian Television award show in which the fans nominate and vote ... These aren't random award mills or weebly awards." There's nothing at MOS:TV that would clearly indicate what to do in a situation like this, so I'm curious what the prevailing community attitude would for something like this. Do we add them? I don't know if these awards are televised or anything. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I go with the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. If the award is notable for an article on Wikipedia, then its inclusion is relevant, but if it does not have an article, then it is probably not notable and should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the threshold that film uses is if there is enough evidence that an award is cited in other articles, that's enough. It doesn't have to have an article on Wikipedia because that isn't a criteria for noteworthiness.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense Bignole, but MOS:FILM actually does say that an award must have its own Wikipedia article to be included. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide a quote from MOS:FILM? I can't find the relevant passage. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

it's written in WP:FILMCRITICLIST Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability. Because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills", festival awards should be added with discretion, with inclusion subject to consensus. Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included..Sid95Q (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I can't see how I overlooked this. I suppose that's an answer to Cyphoidbomb's question then, unless there's a substantial difference between film awards and television awards, though I'm rather unsatisfied that this is a guideline (surely at the very least, the criterion should be that an award is notable, whether or not it currently has an article). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Though I know that WikiProject Television often embraces guidelines found in MOS:FILM, it would be helpful to see some of those brought over to MOS:TV. I know that some people embrace WP:ANTAGONIST, but that's not in the TV MOS, and if something like FILMCRITICLIST is widely embraced for TV, then that should also be in the MOS, I think. I know that there is a general "rule" across various WikiProjects that when you add stuff to a list, those items should have articles first that demonstrate notability. Like List of former child actors from the United Kingdom doesn't have many redlinks, because otherwise everybody's grandmother would add their grandkid to the list--but I'm not sure if there's a community-wide guideline on that. Seems more just what people do. And Bilorv, to your point, I think the spirit of the attitude is that if an article is written and survives community scrutiny, it is presumably notable, where that might not be as easily established otherwise. Media outlets might publish the results of the SBS Telebrations award, but that doesn't necessarily mean the award is notable, because publishing results ≠ writing in depth about the award, its origins, its impact, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No reliable sources were provided to prove the notability of the awards here when I removed the awards @MiaSays: reverted my edit by saying "Will Souirce it" but no sources were provided [12] and here primary source was used which is not enough to prove the notability. Sid95Q (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say (and this could be put in the MOS after some discussion) that one should only have to show that an award is noteworthy enough to be reference by multiple, reliable secondary sources. The fact that it may or may not have a page is irrelevant to me and I'm pretty sure we've operated in converse of that on film pages before if an award was shown to be noteworthy/notable but a page didn't exist. Specifically because notability doesn't dictate that a page exist, it is only the criteria that allows a page to remain in existence. A subject could be notable but not have enough information to warrant an entire page to it. I don't like saying, "it doesn't have a page" if you can at least show that multiple reliable secondary sources reference it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup

You are invited to join the AFD on this related subject. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Big Brother (American and British) move discussions

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 1 (UK)#Requested move 22 December 2018 . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 1 (U.S.)#Requested move 22 December 2018 . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

New WikiProject

I have suggested that a new WikiProject that may be of relevance to this one, be created. If you are interested in viewing the proposal or taking part in the discussion, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Fuller_House.  mrwoogi010  ^Talk 23:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New Warriors (TV series)#The end of the year. — Lbtocth^talk 04:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC on using US or U.S.. -- Whats new?^(talk) 05:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I'm not thrilled to what Pigsonthewing has been doing to the infoboxes, like he tried to merge Template:Infobox television season and Template:Infobox television episode into Template:Infobox television. That's unacceptable and a lot of users oppose this for the right reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If there is no WP:CONSENSUS for this, edits should be reverted and a proper discussion should take place to gain not just consensus, but overwhelming consensus. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has every right to initiate such merges, but I think something of this magnitude needed prior discussion to comment on their concerns before going straight to the merge discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who has seen the TfD might have noticed my attitude. This is because I've been involved in very similar TfDs before. He has been told previously that he should discuss any perceived issues before TfD but he believes TfD is the appropriate venue, which we all accept is not the case. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• BattleshipMan is referring to this TfD in a rather misleading way. Pigsonthewing merely suggested a merge, rather than messing about with the templates themselves as I think the above implies. Anyone of course has the right to start such a TfD and we need to comment on content, not on the contributor. BattleshipMan, threatening messages like this violate NPA. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Look, that merge is unnecessary and you disagreed with it also. Pigsonthewing has a history of doing merges without prior discussions beforehand and that proposed merge is met with opposition for the right reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between opposing a proposal and denying someone the right to start it. Drop the aggressive attitude. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 22:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need for the hostility towards them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some sort of rule not to name and shame editors that appear to be working in good faith but may not have the general support for their changes. It's frankly shocking to put someones username in the discussion title and then rant about them, what happened to neutrality? They could have just made a post highlighting their thoughts in a respectful manner to get the discussion going. Esuka323 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I clearly oppose the proposal but to give him credit, he has identified some issues that need resolving. He has been the subject of Arbcom sanctions in the past and I don't really think he has learned from them but anyone has the right to start a TfD. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yet another similar attempt by Pigsonthewing to change templates without discussion first, despite a identical previous request that can be seen at Template talk:Series overview/Archive 1#Requested move 27 July 2015. Please contribute to Template talk:Series overview‎#Requested move 18 December 2018. -- Alex^TW 11:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Would this fall under WP:DIS? The edits show signs per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, Andy really should slow down here and address the fact that he is leaving editors bewildered. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The nominations do not fall under disruptive, nor is he required to discuss any such future request with any editor or project beforehand. Any other incident is a different issue. --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

No he isn't required to, but this whole thing could have been possibly avoided by placing notices on Wiki-projects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The move should NEVER have been listed as an uncontroversial technical request since it is clearly controversial and Andy should know this as he was the nominator at the previous, failed, RM discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I mentioned over at the current discussion this was WP:TOOSOON as a previous TfD was just closed with the consensus to merge WP:BIGBRO infoboxes into the module {{Infobox reality competition season}} that is part of {{Infobox television season}}. There are over 300+ Big Brother and non-Big Brother articles that have to be moved to this module so that {{Big Brother housemates}}, {{Big Brother endgame}} and {{Big Brother endgame2}} can be deleted. I also mentioned other areas of opportunity for potential merging and consolation that should be considered before even touching the three main infoboxes that are currently proposed. I'm not opposed to the idea in general but it seems like there are some issues that need to be addressed between the three infoboxes before a merge discussion should have taken place. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 21:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

His behavior over all this is generating concern of some of us. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The merger discussion as closed as a WP:SNOW "no merge". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

There is a discussion at MOS:TV that would probably benefit from input by editors from this project. The title is Bulletizing episode summaries at Who Is America?. However it involves bulletising summaries in all articles. Please participate but note that an admin has imposed a time limit of one week. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Who Is America?#Plot Summaries

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Is America?#Plot Summaries. – BoogerD (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Need opinions on split

How do we currently stand on splitting out episode lists? Normally I'd support splitting the episodes from a series article with 15 seasons to a separate LoE page but this unexplained, unattributed split has turned Tanked into little more than a stub as the episode list was virtually the entire article. All that is left now is the lede and infobox. The episode list is incomplete, with many episode summaries missing, so I really don't see a problem in this case having all of the episodes in the main article. What is everyones' opinion for these articles? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it is OK in this case. I've seen a few similar articles where a long episode list has been split off. It would be better to attempt adding some more series info to the primary article, which should be possible given how many seasons have aired you would think. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody has shown any interest in expanding the main series article. This is always an issue with the less popular reality type TV pgograms. Even episode tables suffer. I used to do it a lot but lost interest as it seemed pointless since nobody was looking at the articles. I should also note that the lede of List of Tanked episodes has been copied (unattributed) from Tanked. That means that if you remove content from Tanked that is now in List of Tanked episodes, the only unique content is the infobox. That alone should be justification to merge Tanked into List of Tanked episodes as you don't need an entire article just for an infobox. This is why I asked the question. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

As it currently looks (looking at the pre-split version) it doesn't seem that long. I do agree with Whats new? that if any additional information to the article were to be added then the split would probably be a good option, however if no one is going to do the work, then there probably also isn't a rush for a split. Maybe HonorTheKing is working on that? --Gonnym (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Eh with this particular show I don't see the reason for the split unless someone is planning to expand the main article. The leads on both articles looks almost the same to me. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, I think the changes should be reverted if the editor isn't willing to put in the effort to expand the main article. There's enough information floating around for any reality show to pad an article out. It just takes someone willing and able to do the work to make such substantial contributions to the page. I think the question also needs to be asked, what benefit does the series having a "List of episodes" page really have? Because it's just empty tables with ratings information. Esuka323 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. I've reverted the split for now, since there have been no further changes to the main article and only 1 to the LoE page, that being the replacement of an episode summary with a copyvio. If the main article is expanded we can look at a split then. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Twin Peaks (2017 TV series)#Requested move 1 January 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Twin Peaks (2017 TV series)#Requested move 1 January 2019. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Camera" infobox parameter

A recent discussion at Talk:Homecoming (TV series) determined that the "Camera" infobox field was inappropriately sourced to the TV show itself, which constitutes WP:OR. An editor pointed out that this parameter is widely used and usually unsourced, which means that it may need to be removed from a large number of articles if sourcing cannot be found. Posting here so that folks are aware of this consensus and the reason for these removals. –dlthewave ☎ 02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This would seem to effect articles such as Doctor Who, The Wire, The Sopranos, and Lost. – BoogerD (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Make sure that you take the effort to either find a source first, as it is better to research and improve Wikipedia, or at least tag the content with {{citation needed}}, than to simply mass-delete from multitudes of articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is so easy to cite most of these shows via quick Google searches. If you're taking the time to find articles with unsourced camera parameters, it would be helpful to also actively add references too. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Mass removal is a poor solution to an easy problem. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear, I have no intention of editing any of those articles. Only meant to point out that this apparent issue, as it has been explained in that linked to discussion, affects articles such as the ones above. – BoogerD (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

For what its worth, I found that it wasn't as easy as suggested above to find reliable, secondary sources for which camera setup was used by the above mentioned series (save maybe Doctor Who). In my experience, articles announcing upcoming television series generally only specify camera setup when it comes to comedy series. For drama series, I suppose most entertainment journalists just assume that the setup is a given. Also worth noting, shows nominated for awards like the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Drama Series or the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Comedy Series and mention and source those nominations in the body of their respective articles would seem to be in the clear as far as this concerned. The Emmy Awards actually have numerous categories that specify single-camera and multi-camera. More food for thought. – BoogerD (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Season 6 removal and season 5 episodes

Hi,i'm here to dicuss that there isn't a season 6 yet.I also added some summaries for the 18 19 and 20th episodes of season 5--Tophat566 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about an article? If so, this belongs on the talk page of that particular article. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This belongs in Talk:List of Wild Kratts episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved to that talk page at Talk:List of Wild Kratts episodes#Season 6 removal and season 5 episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability for future TV series (cont.)

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 27 § Notability for future TV series

Continuing on from the above discussion, I have taken WP:NFF and copy-edited it to fit television series (see below). Should it be listed at WP:NFTV (Notability for Future Television Series), or added onto WP:TVSHOW? Perhaps added onto the end of it as a subsection, and WP:NFTV redirects to that subsection?

Rewording of NFTV

Future series, incomplete series, and undistributed series Television series that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended seriesing date. The assumption should also not be made that because a series is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the series might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. In the case of animated series, reliable sources must confirm that the series is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Additionally, series that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released, should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, series produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. References

If you've any changes to the above collapse suggestion, I recommend editing it directly, rather than having multiple copies of it. -- Alex^TW 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is also important to include that pilots that have begun principal photography, but have not been given a "series order", should not have their own articles either. - Brojam (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

More pages for shows that haven't aired? This is getting ridiculous. WP already has pages for series that never aired. What's next, pages for actors who appeared in pilots not picked up & had no other credits? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Such as? Can you link to them? If you're talking about WP:TVSHOW, it does not mention any such topic of series that have not aired, or more conforming to consensus, series that have not yet begun filming. -- Alex^TW 08:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

What Brojam says is absolutely crucial – that absolutely needs to be in there: TV pilots that have not been ordered to series (yet) almost certainly do not qualify for articles in mainspace. But the fact is that WP:TVSHOW needs a more significant rewrite than even this, because it also needs to make even clearer that "airing nationally" (or being released "nationally" by something like Netflix) does not guarantee notability, esp. these days, and what actually determines TV show "notability" is whether it has received significant independent coverage, as per WP:GNG – plenty of TV shows on lower-rung cable channels and many TV movies do not meet this benchmark, especially in this day and age. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both you and Brojam, and I'm sure that the Project looks forward to your proposals. We can have as many discussions as we want, but nothing will go anywhere unless someone actually puts together a proposed edit. -- Alex^TW 13:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose User:IJBall's proposed change(s). We absolutely should have looser notability standards for TV shows, because Wikipedia:Systemic bias is already bad enough and this is one area where allowing more articles would not likely risk getting a bunch of garbage into the encyclopedia – just about any TV show airing on a "national" network involves huge teams of people, so it could pretty much never fall under WP:1DAY. And more importantly, readers expect to find an article on each and every TV show for which one can reasonably be written (i.e. that isn't completely lost or something) – remember, we are editing for the readers, not to satisfy some non-existent objective standard of notability. Modernponderer (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

That's absolutely not the purpose of this encyclopedia. You're basically making an "It WP:EXISTS" argument. By design, we only cover topics that have received significant independent coverage. That's WP:GNG. We literally are not "allowed" to come up with any notability standard that is "looser" than that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@User:IJBall: Actually, we come up with "looser" standards than GNG all the time – WP:SNG is an entire category of them. For example, some of those subject-specific guidelines only require the confirmed existence of a single major award for the subject of the article, as opposed to GNG's substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Quite a big difference there.

And WP:EXISTS is essentially a corollary of WP:1DAY – which I already explained does not really apply to TV shows (certainly not the ones on major networks). So no, I am not making that argument at all. Modernponderer (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:SNG applies specifically to lists, not to "topic" articles. So that's not relevant... Bottom line: You can dress it up any way you want, but you're basically saying we should ignore WP:GNG when it comes to TV shows. Why? What makes TV shows so "special" that we should ignore our notability standards, as opposed to everything else?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:IJBall, you are completely incorrect on the SNG. Please have another look at that link – it has absolutely nothing to do with lists. (In fact the entirety of WP:NMEDIA, including WP:TVSHOW, is essentially SNG, but not categorized as such because it isn't even policy! Which by the way really makes me wonder what the point of changing it would be, since nobody would be obliged to follow it...)

And I literally just explained exactly why TV shows should have a lower bar – two very specific and important reasons. Please re-read my original post here. Modernponderer (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, WP:SNGs should never have "lower standards" than WP:GNG. If they do, they're wrong. Indeed, there's been a fair amount of push-back on this when it comes to sports athletes, because they don't meet GNG. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are our baselines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

User:IJBall, while I respect your opinion the existence of the SNGs I mentioned – as actual guidelines with community consensus – means that it is your view that is out of line with "the purpose of this encyclopedia", and not mine. Modernponderer (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, uh, no it's not – go over to, say, WP:VPP, and propose the idea that it's "OK" for SNGs to have lower threshholds than GNG. I think you'll find the response to that proposal illuminating... Suffice it to say, any SNGs that have "lower standards" than GNG arose much earlier in the history of this project. That they've stuck around doesn't demonstrate that there is "community consensus support" for that – it's rather that either nobody has bothered to try to change them, or that there isn't "consensus for their updating" (which is not the same thing as saying there is "consensus support" for their current wording). But these SNGs that don't meet GNG is a classic example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And we in WP:TV should not attempt to play that game. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@User:IJBall: So your argument now is simply that VPP wouldn't like it? Sorry, I can't exactly debate hypotheticals like that. I prefer to stick with the established guidelines – and just to be clear, if there is no consensus to change them that IS a consensus to keep them the same (if only an implied one).

And no, LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply here – both the GNG and SNGs are guidelines, and one does not override the other unless explicitly stated. (In fact, they work together for notability, in the sense that an article that satisfies either of them is likely to be kept.)

Also, you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room here – the fact that WP:NMEDIA/WP:TVSHOW is neither a policy nor a guideline, and as such editors (such as myself) are completely free to ignore it (and changes to it) altogether. Modernponderer (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Strongly support IJBall's statement per reasons stated within. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Unless I'm mistaken, IJBall is not proposing changes which would affect anything much more than local television or programmes on very obscure channels. In my experience, the larger systemic bias issue on television articles is not that we have too strict a notability criterion, but that no-one has actually bothered to write an article yet. For instance, I was recently surprised to see that BBC Four's There She Goes (a show about a disabled girl) didn't have an article, but now it does. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that's actually not what I'm saying. Local programming is sometimes notable, and is sometimes not. I haven't even touched on that. What I am saying is that many TV programs (and TV movies), that "air nationally", are in fact not notable under WP:GNG. Thus we need to get rid of that statement in WP:TVSHOW. It was pretty much true back in the "three network universe" through the 1980s that "any original TV program that aired" would get significant coverage, and would thus be "notable". But in especially the last 1 to 2 decades, there are plenty of "original" unscripted, and even some scripted, TV shows, that effectively receive little-to-no (significant) independent coverage. You find them on the lower-rung cable channels. The same is even more true of TV movies – how many of the flood of "Christmas" TV movies that we're getting this year are actually notable? (None of the ones on ION TV, I'd bet! for example...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well I've no idea what ION is or what its viewing figures are like but it sounds like what I'd class as "programmes on very obscure channels", if their television movies are genuinely not getting any critical reviews. I suppose it depends what your definition of "little" independent coverage is. If it gets two or three ("multiple") reviews ("independent" / "reliable sources") which are at least a few paragraphs long ("significant coverage"), then I would say it meets WP:GNG. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that. But, these days, a lot of TV movies will only get a "one to two sentence capsule summary" in scheduling guides... Again, I think TVSHOW needs to be updated for the "Peak TV" universe – the assumption that a TV show is notable "because it airs nationally" is no longer the case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; routine scheduling coverage isn't enough. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I like where this is heading, but agree there has to be something in there about pilots, which shouldn't have articles until they are actually picked up by a network. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I somewhat agree that any unsold pilots should've have articles unless they are actually picked up by a network. But they are pilots that have been aired and such, like the Amazon pilot The After which was previously ordered a eight episode season 1, but it was canceled without shooting another episode beyond the pilot. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bumping, in case anyone wants to do anything related to this. I've noticed most discussions here fizzle out and never conclude, which is why we don't have any solid rules and just rely on unwritten "standard practices". -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally share many of the above concerns about systemic bias against shows in countries with media coverage that is harder to parse without native language abilities, less readily available online, or for shows whose existence predates widespread internet coverage. Sometimes, we can rely on the original language's wikipedia for sources or links -- and that's great if we can; however, sometimes an article doesn't exist in those languages: not for reasons of notability (necessarily), but simply because the size of the English wikipedia is so much larger. matt91486 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials to be moved to List of Doctor Who specials. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. This move request covers the scope and intention of the article in question, and could do with some objective eyes from outside the Doctor Who project. Please do take a look if interested, and consider the draft changes at User:U-Mos/sandbox also. U-Mos (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

For anyone interested...

While dealing with an editor I happened across List of Skatoony episodes which is a bit of a mess. I have no idea what a Skatoony is and I'm still dealing with the death of my wife so I don't have time to fix the article. If anyone is interested in fixing this article, you're welcome to do so. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes list

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes list. – BoogerD (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

TfD's that may interest you

You are invited to join the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_5#Template:Big_Brother_housemates
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_5#Template:Pinoy_Big_Brother_-_special_season
• Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_5#Template:Hi-5_America

Thanks. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mireasă pentru fiul meu season 2 (Romania) . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Academy 9 (France) . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2018 in American television#Split proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2018 in American television#Split proposal. Regarding a discussion to split one or more sections into standalone articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Gap in MOS:TVNOW

In the discussion around this edit to List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), it became clear that MOS:TVNOW is slightly lacking when it comes to fictional television series. Although the section is clear that "references to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense", and that "some defunct non-fiction and live programs" may differ from this. This only implies how any participants in the production of a fiction programme (actors, writers, directors etc.) should be referred to, and also ignores previous participants in an ongoing non-fiction/live show (off the top of my head, Jeremy Clarkson's hosting of Top Gear). At the request for comment around this issue, Masem has quite justifiably advocated using the past tense when discussing the previous actors who have played the Doctor from a historical point of view. I believe these matters, that are not in any way unusual, should be covered in the guidelines to ensure consistency across the television WikiProject. U-Mos (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Discussion of two WP:BOLD edits at MOS:TVCAST

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Discussion of two WP:BOLD edits at MOS:TVCAST. U-Mos (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

If anyonw is interested, please participate in the discussion over here: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#ITV Sources

MiaSays (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Waterman

Please could an editor familiar with U.S. TV take a look at Template:Waterman Broadcasting Corporation? An IP editor has expanded it recently, and many of the stations listed there have no obvious connection to Waterman. Thanks, Certes (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted to the March 2014 version – changes this massive require some kind of explanation. Also, the "new version" was much too massive to be useful as a navbox. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox season discussion users might be interested in

There is currently a proposal up for discussion at Template talk:Infobox television season#Adjusting the header title that users might want to weigh in on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother (Albanian TV series)#Requested move 14 January 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother (Albanian TV series)#Requested move 14 January 2019 . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 15

•  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Template:AOS . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
•  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#IACGMOOH contestants .
•  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Coach Trip endgame .
•  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 15#Coach Trip couples . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother (season 1)#Requested move 18 January 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother (season 1)#Requested move 18 January 2019 . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 23:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Template:Hotel1

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Template:Hotel1 . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 06:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested

Hi, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Threshold for inclusion of awards. Short story, I'm trying to figure out what the community requires when deciding whether or not an award should be added to a TV article, and I'd like to encourage specific language be added to the MOS. Your comments there are appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Cite episode standardization

I've recently taken a look at {{Cite episode}} and noticed that the |author= parameter is being used in different ways by different editors. It would be good if we decide on a standed way for this to be done, and if needed request additional parameters be made available.

A few notes:

• Text should not be manually added after an individual as it corrupts the citation's author metadata. Example: J.J. Abrams (Director).
• Credits that can be considered "authors" - Writer, Teleplay, Story, Director, Showrunner - which of these, or others should be used? Note that while the script has a "writer" author, the finished audio-visual episode is not solely based on the writers vision (unlike a book), which means that if you cite an episode for a visual visual or SFX moment and a writer is used as an author, that seems to be wrong.
• If writers are used, should WGA screenwriting credit system (Writer A and Writer B vs Writer A & Writer B) be taken into consideration?

--Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion at Help talk:CS1#Cite episode and author. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC on using the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, for review aggregators

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#RfC: Should the "As of" template, or some similar wording indicating that the score may have changed over time, be used for review aggregators in articles?. A permalink for it is seen here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation

What are the criteria for including an award in a biographical article? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The misuse of the term Television in relation to web videos that have never aired on television.

I happened to notice that the page title for the Netflix series A Series of Unfortunate Events claims that it is a TV series. Correct me if I am wrong here but the definition of "TV Series" is "a show that has been made for broadcasting on television" is it not? While Netflix and the show itself may constantly claim the show to be "streaming television" which here should mean "a TV show which is made available on (a) streaming video service(s), specifically those on the internet(as opposed to Cable Video on Demand, though the two are not mutually exclusive as some services provide internet-based Video on Demand directly from cable companies and broadcasters themselves)". If the show was made for, and exclusively streamed on Netflix, then how would it fit the definition of "TV Series" or "streaming television"?

As I was writing this for that show's talk page, I noticed while looking into the matter to be certain, that this site's own article on "television show" claims streaming video counts in the heading but fails to cite any sources. "Web television" also fails to mention the origin of the term or provide any sources for the term itself, mostly mentioning various web services claiming to be TV services, though it also mentions the International Academy of Web Television, which is an article rife with primary sources and a couple of articles that are specifically talking about the "Streamy Awards" which do not in any way validate their use of the term. Also, streaming media claims that the only websites that stream TV Shows are ones like "Hulu and Amazon", while YouTube is mentioned as a site to stream video games in stark contrast to what web television says on the matter. Seems to me that a larger problem is at play here that needs to be addressed, which is why I modified what I said and decided to post it here instead.

I understand that the lines have been blurred a bit in the digital age and that's understandable but clarity between terms exists for a reason and at the very least, as a compromise I would ask that more specific terms such as "streaming television" "webseries" or "Netflix series" should be used in cases like the aforementioned Netflix-exclusive series in spite of my insistence on the term "streaming television" being a misnomer here. Mattwo7 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mattwo7: Hi there, I don't speak for the community, but I'm not sure if such a distinction is warranted. Do we differentiate between over-the-air television and cable television and satellite television? Don't we all generally feel that those things are the same even though the delivery comes in slightly different ways? I typically watch Netflix on my television. I could watch it on my computer via HTTPS, but does that make it a "web series" if I can also watch it through my phone or tablet app using whatever internet protocols they use? If I'm not using a web browser, is it still a web series? Similarly, I can also watch live cable shows wirelessly through my computer or tablet! So again, the delivery mechanism doesn't seem to define the content. If a program is created for Netflix or Hulu, I think it still generally fits into a few well-defined categories, like movie, documentary or series. The word television just means "distance vision"--it doesn't have to mean "content that is watched on a large box in the middle of the living room". Those are my two cents. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: It is to my understanding that here at Wikipedia, sources overrule personal opinion and the overall lack of sources supporting the use of the term all across this project needs to be rectified if you want to push such an opinion in the face of what I've said. The definition food chain seems to be cited sources>dictionary>original research (with original research not being allowed at all here, which is part of the problem that I am bringing up). Sure if you break the word down you get those words but that's not the definition of the word "television" and I'm pretty sure definitions typically overrule etymology as a general rule of thumb when it comes to language in general, not just English (driveway and parkway are prime examples). Also satellite and cable are both live broadcast, comparing them to Netflix is like comparing apples to oranges, only the VoD stuff compares and that comes with the live broadcasting service where as Netflix offers no such thing, none of their originals have ever been broadcast live whereas the vast majority of VoD content (save for stuff like wrestling matches) has been aired live, a closer comparison to the VoD content on television would be a video podcast (I.e. Game Theory's GT Live) that's streamed live before being archived with an on-demand viewing service. Also btw, I've done a little more digging and it does seem that the term "television" in regards to web-original programming is more widely accepted than I thought so it shouldn't be too hard to find the sources to back up your opinion. Mattwo7 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also the fact that you access services like Hulu and Netflix via devices like HDTV sets, mobile phones and gaming consoles doesn't mean it isn't web-based, you're accessing content stored on the internet using the frontend of an API. Mattwo7 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I doubt we'll be able to find any specific source to make it clear, but the reason why Netflix series are considered TV series is that they are created and produced in a manner reflecting how traditional television is put together: the show idea is pitched, a production company is sought, distribution rights have to be made, a season order is requested, there's casting, filming, production and post-production, and then distribution; further seasons have to be greenlit subsequently, and they are released in roughly annual basis, just not necessarily aligned with broadcast's year (from Sept to August). In contrast to a typical Youtube-based series which does not require many of those steps, specifically production and distribution company and rights - they are self published. (So something like Hot Ones is properly attributed as a web series vs TV series). Just because Netflix series generally have all episodes of a season landing the same doesn't meant they're not TV series - some broadcast TV series have had multiple episodes aired first on a single day. Other considerations to add is that the Emmys make no distinction between broadcast and streaming. (I remember way back when there was major consternation between over-the-air and cable, hence the ACE awards, but the industry has since viewed both as the same media format). --Masem (t) 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem essentially if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck. Also by searching I found this, this, this and this which describes Netflix's shows as "TV series" not "web series". There are some articles that use "web series" and some that use both terms. Also with today's media landscape the lines of "traditional" TV and web series continues to blur. One could argue that Game of Thrones is now a web series since HBO Now exists and you don't need to subscribe to the "traditional" linear HBO through a pay-TV provider to watch and the show airs at the exact same time via HBO Now and regular HBO. There is also recognizably, most people I know consider Netflix's shows to be TV series not web series they consider FBE's React shows a web series. Also you have shows like Star Trek: Discovery that air on CBS All Access that is considered a TV show and follows a release pattern similar to a traditional show (1 episode per week). Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Series overview tables

Quite some time ago this project made two decisions:

1. Series overview tables would be transcluded to the main series article
2. Series overview tables would not contain home media release information

We now have situations such as that at Star Trek: Discovery where the series overview table is not transcluded to the article, raising the potential for duplication errors, which was one of the reasons used to justify transcluding to the main series article. This table also has home media release information in the series overview table which has been cunningly disguised by dumping it in the "Release" section of the article. Have we changed our minds on how such tables are going to be compiled? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Series overview tables would not contain home media release information on the List of Episodes article. I can cite a multitude of articles that use the form of release table on the Star Trek: Discovery article, where they have existed without dispute. Duplication issues would exist where the series overview template is transcluded to the parent article, and the Release table exists at the same time; the series overview table gives information on the series, the release table gives release information on the series. Release can include broadcast and home media. I also don't recall any of this being set in stone... -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Series overview tables would not contain home media release information on the List of Episodes article. - Please cite the discussion where that exception was agreed to. That other articles may do what you say does not make it acceptable. You should know that by now. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Please cite the discussion where it was agreed upon to concretely ban all and any home media from any table that includes season-specific dates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I never said there was such a discussion so you haven't deflected from the need to cite the discussion that I asked you to cite. However the table in the STD article is a series overview table with DVD release dates added, which we did agree was not appropriate. Home media release information should be in the home media section, not in a series overview table. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Standard practice. Series overview templates typically exist on "List of episodes" articles, and before the episode tables. You stated "this project made two decisions"; that indicates discussion. (At least, I don't recall making such decisions telepathically...) When you say "That other articles may do what you say does not make it acceptable", yes, I would typically agree; however, when a multitude of articles contain such content, and do so without dispute or issue, then it is clearly acceptable. Much of what the Television WikiProject does is based on "other articles" and "standard practice" (which is why new editors have such a hard time editing television articles) which I tried to implement in the MoS, but that discussion died off as most here do. I'm still trying to work out how "we did agree [it] was not appropriate"... I see no issue with the table. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Series overview tables have been discussed a number of times. This is but one of them. It wasn't the first as indicated by Cyphoidbomb and it wasn't the last, but I asked you about discussions that supported your position, not discussions in general. It doesn't matter whether you participated telepathically or not, if you have a position you have to be able to support it or abandon that position as unsupported. That a "multitude"{{citation needed}} of articles might do it still doesn't mean it's acceptable. There are a multitude of other articles violating practically every policy and guideline that we have but that isn't justification for continuing bad practices.

I'm still trying to work out how "we did agree [it] was not appropriate"... I see no issue with the table. - It's a series overview table that incorporates home media release dates. You know very well that's not acceptable. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I can link the articles if need be, and it still remains acceptable, see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. And MoS's are not policies. What may not be good for the goose, may be good for the gander. We use {{Episode table}} out of convenience, but don't ban raw wikicode tables (I know of several that use raw code out of necessity). {{Infobox television}} is meant to have a single date range for a series' release date, but it may be more descriptive for particular series to list several date ranges (e.g. revivals). The lead isn't meant to consist of new material (i.e. only in the lead), it's meant to summarize the body, yet we apparently often put renewals and cancellations only in the lead. Series overviews don't typically incorporate home media release dates, but it's not concrete. It's not what "not acceptable", as there is nothing to enforce as such; it's what beneficial and acceptable for the article itself. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Episode!

Is episode list necessary for a GA? Is it required? Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 17:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

What article are we talking about?... As an aside, I've noticed a lot of the WP:TV WP:GAs don't even properly follow MOS:TV (e.g. section ordering is wrong; often they don't follow WP:ACCESS in tables; etc.) – I'm not sure who has been reviewing those, but it seems like a lot of the times it's not a WP:TV regular... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: My Love from the Star. Also please don't forget to ping me. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Watership Down plot

Hi, Currently at Watership Down_ (miniseries) the plot is a whopping 12350 words and 71833 characters long - So my question is should the plot remain and be trimmed or should it all be moved to the talkpage (in a collapsible box) so that someone can trim?,
I've added condense tags to each section but I don't really know if this will ever be trimmed or whether it'll just remain as is for all eternity,
I'm undecided on what to do so wanted to seek an opinion or 2,
Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Your post here and the IP are right. As stated, the summary is way too massive to be considered beneficial at all to the article, and needs to be completely reworked from the start, from scratch, within the guidelines of MOS:TVPLOT. I've gone ahead and removed it. I don't see any possible way that such content could be trimmed down satisfactorily; that's why it needed to be added from scratch. Preferably within the summary section of the {{Episode list}} entries, as well. The editors who added such a summary should also have {{uw-plotsum1}} posted to their talk pages. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Alex 21, I did wonder if re-doing from scratch would be a better idea, Okie dokie many thanks for your help :), –Davey2010^Talk 11:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 61#Need valid source(s) about Viva TV on IBC, which is about a wikipedia that is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 11:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on Telesur at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a request for comment on the reliability of Telesur at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Telesur. — Newslinger talk 02:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television episode

Suggested adding the option to use either the "executive producer" or "producer" credit for showrunners—depending on the country of origin—in the infobox for television episodes. The discussion can be found here: Template talk:Infobox television episode#Replacing "produced by" credit with executive producer (showrunner) credit. In the United States, the showrunner is the leading executive producer responsible for the creativity and management for a TV series. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Loose Women

Does anyone watch Loose Women? It appeared on my radar at the end of January and since then there have been multiple unexplained changes to the presenter and starring fields in the infobox,[13] far more than I've seen with any other TV program. I do not watch this program so I don't know whether these changes have been valid and I was hoping somebody here might be able to clear this up. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility of Doctor Who episode tables

Discussions have been raised concerning the accessibility of Doctor Who episode tables; these can be found at Module talk:Episode list#Sandbox version update and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Accessibility disagreement. Different table suggestions have been put forward on how to fix these accessibility issues, including the use of horizontal rules, the separation of episode-specific information into tabular rows, and the rearranging of the header and table columns. Further opinions would be appreciated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Bold typeface being applied to titles without numbering

It seems like a recent update to Module:Episode list could be the cause. See, for example, List of Sabrina the Teenage Witch episodes#TV films: The film names are in bold, while the episode titles above are not since they're numbered. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there was a number of undiscussed changes in the mass "update" to the module; I am on the belief that they should be reverted and discussed here. As for the bolding, I believe it is the use of either the <th>...</th> tag or the cell scope. -- /Alex/₂₁ 16:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a template editor, so a template editor will have to take a look at it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the change is applying a "!scope="row" to the first cell if there isn't a number cell, and that is done for accessibility reasons, as stated in the relevant guideline. That is how tables work. --Gonnym (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that's why you want the table to be a "plainrowheaders"-type table, so that it doesn't "bold" the first cell of the row... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Episode table}} already uses the "plainrowheaders" class, and still, the first cell is bolded. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Issue should be fixed now. --Gonnym (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it is at List of Sabrina the Teenage Witch episodes#TV films. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Pages where template include size is exceeded

There are a number of List of episodes television articles where the template include size has been exceeded, and thus episode tables and further templates aren't rendered on the article, if anyone wants to take a look into them.

• List of Ang Probinsyano episodes
• List of Cops episodes
• List of Gunsmoke television episodes
• List of Holby City episodes
• List of Law & Order episodes
• List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes
• List of NCIS episodes
• List of Stuff You Should Know episodes
• List of The Bill episodes

-- /Alex/₂₁ 07:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Having been through the dramas previously, I'm not even going to bother to attempt to fix any of these as it's really not worth putting in the effort given the demonstrated return. However, List of Holby City episodes was one that was fixed as late as October 2018 and there was enough headroom left to ensure it would last for a few more series before any more problems appeared. Despite this, the addition of just Holby City (series 21) has broken it already. Removing the link to that article doesn't remove the problem. Neither does reverting to the 5 October 2018 version where the post-expand include size was only 1,911,556 bytes at that time. That version now breaks the limit. To fix this article properly (which is not necessarily the pretty version that some prefer) it will be necessary to examine each of the transcluded series articles to find out what has changed that caused the problem to reoccur in so short a time. To anyone trying to fix this, may God have mercy on your soul. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Hint: Stop transcluding articles. Problem solved.) --Izno (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, let's delete thousands of "List of episode" articles, because we're not transcluding anymore, so we don't need them, problem solved, what an ingenious idea! /s -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that's overkill... I think many of us are fine with the "splitting" solution – with very long TV series, simply split the LoE articles into "List of [X] episodes (seasons 1–15)" and "List of [X] episodes (seasons 16–present)", or something along those lines. Despite the resistance to this, this is a perfectly fine solution that doesn't particularly inconvenience the readership, and deals with the technical limitations... Well, that, or get the WMF to fix the "technical limitations"! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Based on what happened with List of Holby City episodes, I don't think it's just technical limitations here. As I said, that article should have been fine for a few more series but "something" has happened in the last month or so that has caused the size to blow out. It's not just that article either. List of NCIS episodes was fine too. A few days ago I did notice that, for a short time, Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded had well over 1,000 (~1,700 articles IIRC) in it so maybe something else has been happening that the WMF "programmers" didn't intend. As for Izno's suggestion, why stop there? Let's remove all formatting and just manually do everything. That would keep size problems right down! --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Would archiving sources in the episode table be a possible cause of this? This edit, for example, saw an increase of 17k bytes to the transcluded episode table. The nine articles I listed are articles I actually found from the linked category. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a possibility. References have always been an issue on the LoE page. Early attempts at reducing the size at List of The Simpsons episodes included formatting references manually which cut the size significantly. I've seen similar size increases as the result of a bot adding archive links. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Is substituting the citation templates something that might help on at least some of these pages? I believe this can be done quite quickly by using the "Search and replace" tool (top right hand corner of the 'Advanced' tab of the editor) to replace {{cite with {{subst:cite. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  No, because citation templates now use TemplateStyles, which are not to be substituted. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've already tried that, to no avail. For the two articles I've done thus far,[14][15] I edited and previewed the episode table section, then pulled the previewed references from the page's source HTML and search-and-replaced them all into Wikicode. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, good to know. Yes, it's unfortunate that there's no less laborious way but it's still a workaround. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I know the episode template is complex enough already, but my first inclination is that as long as you are including season pages where there should be no template-count problem, then maybe if you added a template like "Viewer_1_ref", place the ref in that, and then wrap that with a no-include so that it should up on the season episode but not a list-of-episodes, that should eliminate the template problem. This would also be a graceful solution, since right now for most shows that reference is w/in the Viewer parameter for most lists where there is no problem in template counts. You'd only need to immediately use this new field for the season episodes that are a problem. --Masem (t) 01:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  Couldn't we just wrap the reference that is already in the |Viewers= parameter in a <noinclude>...</noinclude> tag, without having to introduce a new parameter? That way, it would still appear in the episode table on the season article, next to the viewer number, and not in the episodes article, where it would display as simply the viewer number. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  That's possible too. --Masem (t) 15:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the first two examples, List of Ang Probinsyano episodes and List of Cops episodes, after the change, do these pages have any use now? They have 4 references left, none of which is used to cite the information in the lists, and the lists themselves are very bare with only episode titles and dates for Cops, and ratings also for Ang Probinsyano. With none of the episodes linked and no episode summary, what is the purpose of such a page? --Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

With only a few exceptions, there shouldn't be any episode summaries on the LoE page when it transcludes content from the season articles, which is the case with List of Ang Probinsyano episodes. That's just normal. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Remo

The article David Remo has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Peaceray (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent mass addition of Saturn Award actor templates to main series articles

TVBuff90 has added tons of templates for actors to the articles for the TV series in which that actor won the award for; see here for example. As far I know, we don't do that, otherwise an article could literally have hundreds of acting award templates, if we were do this for every award ceremony. If we're not doing this for Emmys, then we definitely shouldn't be doing it for the Saturn Awards. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a pretty simple rule on this: only list awards for the show at the TV show articles, and only list awards for the actors at the articles about the actors. So, based on that, the edit in the diff above can and should be reverted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, the TV series article has nothing to do with a personal award given to an actor. --Gonnym (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Altered Carbon (TV series)

The article is a mess, or about to become one. This article is in desperate need of a re-organization.

Do we have any other series which completely switch out... well, everything?

The plot section, cast section, infobox... most sections really is season specific with little or no overlap.

As is the clean approach would be to rename the current page "Altered Carbon (TV series season 1)" or somesuch and then create a duplicate for season two where all of this is replaced by the pertinent S2 info. And then collect the (few) tidbits common to all seasons on "Altered Carbon (TV series)", the master page.

How do we handle this? CapnZapp (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, I don't think season two has even been released yet? The only thing that's standing out as S2 material is the short cast list. I mean, there are an excessive amount of EPs listed in the infobox, but otherwise it seems like a normal TV series main article. — TAnthony^Talk 22:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I see no issue with the article, other than Development and Production need to be swapped and Episodes moved to before Production. Big no on "Altered Carbon (TV series season 1)", it would be "Altered Carbon (season 1)", and that's only if there's enough season-specific content to split from the parent article but still leave enough in the parent article to allow it to stand on their own. Which there isn't. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You both answer as if I were talking about the article in its current shape. Of course there's not much to do if time suddenly stopped and today's info was all that would ever be released for AC!

I am obviously planning ahead, for season 2. That's why I'm asking here. This is not the article's talk page! I am asking for advice. I am asking that experienced TV article editors plan ahead for this show. What other shows of a similar structure are there? How did they solve the issues? Did they achieve clarity and ease of access even after several seasons of disparate info? Thanks. CapnZapp (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

You stated The article is a mess, or about to become one. This article is in desperate need of a re-organization. Not "will be a mess" or "will be in need". The article can follow the example of the thousands of other television series articles, in which the information for the new season is simply added to the article. No need for separation or some sort of "merge" of the information. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a question

I was looking at WP:TVSEASON and is there a rule that a name has to be; List of X show (season 1) episodes, List of X show: A new life, List of X show (season 2) episodes, etc. To "X show (season 1), X show: A new life, X show (season 2), etc. Because I don't see how List of High School DxD (season 1) episodes and List of High School DxD New episodes follows "episode" after season? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

In general, something like List of High School DxD (season 1) episodes is the wrong article titling format for a TV series – it is properly at just High School DxD (season 1). So if you come across any "List of [...] (season X) episode" articles, please feel free to move them to "[...] (season X)". If there is not enough content to justify a standalone "season" article, then it should be merged back to the base "List of episodes" article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Tainted-wingsz, assuming the article can go standalone, you could rename the seasons to High School DxD (2012 TV series) and use High School DxD New, High School DxD Born. The titles don't have to be List of High School DxD New episodes or List of High School DxD Born episodes unless they are a separate article from another media of the same name so as to not have to make High School DxD New (TV series). Look at all those Survivor (U.S. TV series) for similar convention . Alternatively, you could use (season 1), (season 2) if they are commonly referred to as such or have those as redirects. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood you (AngusWOOF) correctly, but if you said that the first season article can be renamed to High School DxD (2012 TV series), then that is incorrect. A "(TV series)" can only be used for the TV series article, not for the season article. If you did mean the series article, then ignore my comment here. --Gonnym (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh? I only noticed this after sending a WP:SPI some time ago. As one of their edits was on High School DxD. Then if I didn't do WP:SPLIT, but another did in the drafts. Would it have to be renamed to follow the rule. As currently in Draft:List of High School DxD Born episodes and most of it is copied from List of High School DxD episodes in a strange mess. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And to me this feels like a bold move. And cleaning after it, I wouldn't go crazy just splitting it. At any page/ article. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I did the first season, and I forgot how would you add everything to High School DxD New. Since there's a redirect there. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, fair enough. I was referring to the season, but if we do High School DxD (season 1), should the next "season" will be High School DxD New, or it should have to follow (season 2). A lot of these anime TV series have the starting name as the same as the series name and the sequels being with extra words or letters or punctuation marks. Another option is that Sailor Moon uses List of Sailor Moon episodes (season 1), followed by List of Sailor Moon R episodes and Sailor Moon R redirects to the list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCTV answers that by saying that if some seasons use a name and others don't then all article titles should use the (season #) disambiguation style. I will note that there have been some recent WP:RM moves which had only the first season without a unique name, which resulted in that season using "(TV season)". So either (season 1) or that should work for the first season. The Sailor Moon articles are not following NCTV and should be changed. --Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I just did the next one. Then the High School DxD Born is still in the draft form. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Last Man Standing (season 7) has been nominated for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nuff said. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, not enough said apparently. The nominator has now been indef-blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet. Meanwhile, the AfD is still open, but really shouldn't be. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I've closed it as invalid. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, since I had participated I didn't think it was appropriate for me to do it. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For what it's worth, my comments still stand. An episode table, a ratings table, and a few sentences of a production do not make a season article. There is nothing here that cannot be included in the parent and episodes article. Merge the content and draft the article until it has been expanded. See the recent Arrowverse articles on how to properly develop an article to be ready for the mainspace. Adding onto that, just because other articles exist, does not make it more valid. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

World of Sports (Australia)

There are 3 articles which seem to be for the exact series, but I'm just not sure - Wide World of Sports (Australian TV series), Nine's Wide World of Sports and World of Sport (Sydney, Australia TV series). Note: None of these is World of Sport (Australian TV program), which is a different program. I'm pretty sure that Wide World of Sports and Nine's Wide World of Sports are the same program, looking at the list of hosts, years and channel, but I can't find any sources online for the Sydney show. Note that IMDB lists only Wide World of Sports and the Melbourne show. Anyone have any ideas what to do? --Gonnym (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No they are all separate. The first is a long-running, once-rebooted weekend sports panel program. The second is not a program at all, but rather the Nine Network's well-known (in Australia) branding for its sports productions (similar to NFL on NBC or Fox NFL, only used for all sports presentations). The third is a separate sports panel program as well, unrelated to the former two. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-reformatting proposal

I've just posted something to the talk page for the relatively-obscure project template {{Television home release}} (total transclusion count across the English Wikpedia: 54, at the time of this writing) which may be of interest to project members. In it, I propose that we remove the wikitable structure from the template entirely. I'd be eager to hear reactions and input from any interested wikipedians. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Television season ratings‎

Just a heads up, I'm planning on updating the parameter names of Template:Television season ratings‎, from:

• |premiere= to |startrating= (to disambiguate between the confusing similar-titled parameters |premiere= (ratings) and |start= (date))
• |finale= to |endrating= (to disambiguate between the confusing similar-titled parameters |finale= (ratings) and |end= (date))

-- /Alex/₂₁ 00:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Since all multiple name parameter names in that template use an underscore, please follow that convention and use |start_rating= and |end_rating=. --Gonnym (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll consider the suggestion, cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Untitled Apple TV series

Do these Apple TV series meet the required guidelines to have a standalone article - Untitled Brie Larson CIA drama series, Untitled Damien Chazelle drama series, Untitled M. Night Shyamalan drama series, Untitled Rob McElhenney/Charlie Day comedy series, Untitled Richard Gere drama series, Untitled Simon Kinberg/David Weil science fiction series? All are unnamed and haven't started filming. --Gonnym (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow, they definitely don't meet the criteria. I see two options:

• They can be redirected to Apple Inc.#2011–present: Post-Steve Jobs era; Tim Cook leadership and possibly be mentioned in the TV programming paragraph that begins "Also in June 2017, Apple appointed Jamie Erlicht and Zack Van Amburg...", or
• A list article like List of original programs distributed by Amazon or List of programs broadcast by HBO or can be started. It will certainly be needed eventually.

Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 00:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking at {{Apple programming}}, there are certainly enough series for a sourced list.— TAnthony^Talk 00:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow I'm slow on the uptake ... List of original programs distributed by Apple already exists and these articles should be redirected there for now, IMO.— TAnthony^Talk 01:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Television season ratings

Some series frequently change timeslots, which is why a parameter to hide the timeslot was added. Similarly, there are some series where their episodes consist of two segments—usually animation—and for one reason or another, rather than airing an episode's segments together, the network will air segments individually (and still label the entire showing as "new," even though the second segment is a repeat). For those cases, I think it would be useful if a parameter to hide the episodes column were added below the "hide_timeslot" parameter. Simply, it would be "hide_episodes." There may be 26 episodes, but if the segments aren't always aired together, that just leads to confusion if you count a segment individually aired as an episode. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment (March 2019)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#Télévision à la carte japonaise, the subject of which is within the scope of this WikiProject. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Loose Women

I was wondering if somebody could look at Loose Women#List of episodes. I'm interested in opinions. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Far too much detail, in my opinion. The list could be endless and of little value. From the first week, we see that Carol Vorderman was working Tuesday and Wednesday, but not Mon, Thur or Fri. What is this? A staff rota? I appreciate someone put a lot of work into it, but it really can't go on.Tuzapicabit (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Or not enough detail and too much trivia? What happened on the 25 October 2012 episode? I don't know but Carol Vorderman, Sally Lindsay, Carol McGiffin and Jane McDonald were the hosts. The episode table concentrates on the wrong thing altogether. I'm tempted to just slash it all. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the "episode tables" should just be cut – we don't do episode tables for shows like this, and this is a perfect example why we don't... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Teleplay by / Written by

If a writer is credited as "Teleplay by", and there is no "Story by" credit, is that the same as being credited as just "Written by"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Should be, as animation, which doesn't have teleplay, has shown both "story" and "written." Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

They're similar, but different credits. Teleplay credits are used when the episode is usually based on source material. If you want more info, here's a link to the Writers Guild Manual. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I've seen them used more/less interchangeably, or at least when separate source story material isn't clear in the credit. There was a fad (late '60s & into mid-'70s?) to use "teleplay by" rather than "written by", which struck me as an affectation, in cases where there was no credit for any other person involved (story or source, which would provoke "teleplay by" or "screenplay by" as a legit credit). I haven't seen much sign of "teleplay by" since. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The example that made me raise this is American Gods. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw this used with Nightflyers, which was based on George RR Martins novella. I thought it was weird at first because I only had seen this used like "Story by" and "Teleplay by" at the same time on shows. Like with most shows on Syfy, it had no audience. Esuka (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Order (TV series)#Country

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Order (TV series)#Country . — YoungForever^(talk) 16:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Awards

TVBuff90 seems to be re-writing history. He has been removing awards from shows because he does not agree with the award associations as they have changed names. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb on this is – if the Awards have their own Wikipedia page, they're considered "notable", and if they don't have an article the awards are considered "non-notable" and can legitimately be removed... Now, with that set up, care to point us to diffs, or articles in question, at least?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Stuff like removing a template from a page and removing articles from template even though the show is still listed as the winner at Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Comedy Series. Stuff like that.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• IJBall Hey-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Netflix series end date

For Netflix series that haven't been cancelled but haven't been picked up for a second season yet, do we use present for the end date or do we not include an end date at all? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

We do not include an end date at all, as at that specific point in time, the series is not considered ongoing and thus the only available date is the premiere date. Once the series is renewed, it is then considered ongoing, and then present is used. Present is not used in all uncertain cases, as was suggested, only uncertain cases where present is already used but there has been no news for twelve months, per the template documentation, which is where present is changed, not added. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Apple TV

Apple TV, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Cast indicator

There is a new template for cast lists that include a list indicator, at {{Cast indicator}}, to provide a standard list indicator. The list entries can be customized per the documentation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Should Voltron (1984 TV series) be renamed?

I was wondering if Voltron (1984 TV series) should be renamed Voltron: Defender of the Universe if anybody is interested in this debate go to Talk:Voltron (1984 TV series) and voice your opinion. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:ABC's Wide World of Sports for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:ABC's Wide World of Sports is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:ABC's Wide World of Sports until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Aaron Sorkin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Aaron Sorkin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aaron Sorkin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Friends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Friends is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)