Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Airing of episode summaries prior to air date

Is that part of COPYVIO, or something else? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

By prior to air date, do you mean several days before or the day of, but before its official premiere time? If the latter, probably early viewing on the network's app. Amaury • 17:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I am referring to a tv show's episode, due to air tonight, but an ep summary has appeared several hours prior to airing, seemingly out of nowhere. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Then yeah, I'm willing to bet it's been available for early viewing on the app. Amaury • 17:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought that a major part of why sourcing is not required for plot summaries is that it is a consensus version of what transpired within the episode. It is supposed to broadcast this evening, and I cannot find the streaming version of the episode. As this deprives the company making the product of profits they would be able to generate over a new episode, it feels like theft to print the episode summary here. Lastly, there is that whole 'There is no Deadline' thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

As this deprives the company making the product of profits they would be able to generate over a new episode, it feels like theft to print the episode summary here. You have tried to push this point before. Please do not forum shop. It is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the plot can be verified. If it is available for early viewing on the app, then it is available for verification. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, I am not forum-shopping. The last time this came up, it was about the series finale summary being broadcast prior to worldwide release. This is something else entirely; we are seeing a plot summary for an episode that hasn't even aired yet. As such, the plot cannot be verified, now can it? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's an episode that hasn't been released anywhere yet, then it's a sure WP:COPYVIO. But it's from an episode that has been "released", but has not been "broadcast" yet, then it's fine. 17:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I see the distinction now. A nagging concern remains about how we form a consensus view of the primary source when the primary source is behind a paywall. It would seem to impede a fair evaluation of the plot, as the only ones able to do so pay for access. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that a lot of content today is technically paywell (Cable, streaming services), it shouldn't matter. As long as it was a intentional, legitimate release of an episode on a service by the people with control of the copyright interest, that as a member of the public you have access to (even if you have to pay for it), it is WP:V fair game and a plot summary can be made. Leaks (eg the infamous leak of nu Dr Who "Rose") do not qualify for this, and from the film project, this would also include things like early screener discs or the like that have purposely limited distribution. --Masem (t) 18:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay Masem, that makes sense. How do we determine notability of the episode if there are no secondary sources (ie. reviews). There is no significant coverage of the episode (of the series, sure, but nothing regarding the episode as of yet).

I think a lot of my discomfort about this comes from us being in a hurry to get that episode summary out, when many outside of the paywall cannot contribute to a consensus editing process - the goal of plot summary editing. Also, posting a plot summary when there is not even a single review by a source is really concerning to me, as us editors are not citable. All of these (imo) constitute a problem. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Notability is definitely an issue to concern oneself with. For well-established shows, one can use past coverage to determine if there is a strong likelihood of reviews and thus notable. For example, I will attest that I will be 99% right in that the premier of Walking Dead season 10 or Westworld season 3 will have many reviews, because nearly all episodes of both series of the past have had significant number of reviews and per-episode notability is virtually assured. However, one must want out for review wariness - I have not looked but I doubt there are as many reviews for every new Simpsons or South Park episode as there were in the heyday. However, on a brand new series , or a series that had iffy review coverage in the past, one absolutely must wait for reviews to show up to make that episode article. We have a massive amount of cruft of non-notable episodes created without waiting for reviews, and that's problem we need to bite off at the source. --Masem (t) 18:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I feel the same need for caution as well. I'm concerned that en-Wiki is shifting away from its reliance on secondary sources towards a more 'Yay, I posted about it first!' approach that seems a lot closer to forums.

The bit Izno was concerned about was the series ender of GoT, wherein the plot summary for the intensely anticipated series ender was posted (12+ hours) before the episode was broadcast worldwide. The decision there was that because it was broadcast everywhere, we weren't beholden to wait. I believe spoilerz' was a red herring argument used in that discussion.

Maybe the problem is just me and how I look at it. Wikipedia is not a social media or reporting site; we're an encyclopedia. We don't really cover stuff until well after the fact, so we have a broader view of the subject matter. There seems to be a lot of struggle to make sure they are the very first to post on a subject or episode or movie. I understand the impulse, but I think its the wrong one to have when editing an encyclopedia.

I am also concerned that we are interfering with the profit-making ability of a show when we post details ahead of general broadcast. If you know who Keyser Soze is or that Malcolm Crowe was dead all along, you're less likely to plunk down premium prices for a movie ticket or wade through commercials to watch an episode all the way through. I used to think that COPYVIO covered this, but I've since learned that there is no governing idea about protecting the livelihood of people who create our entertainment in the same way that we protect the livelihoods of our BLPs. I guess my concern is comparable to the piracy versus buying the product. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That's why I point out the idea of a legit release. If the copyright rights holder believes that it is fine to release an anticipated series on mobile devices before normal broadcast, we should not care. I recognize the paywall issue, but that would immediately extend to a normal (non-early) release; eg: HBO being paywall, is posting the plot summary after the finale airs on that channel denying any commercial rights because HBO expects you to pay for it? From WP's standpoint, nope - financial loss due to a source because we went through their paywall is not a concern- if that makes sense. This, however, reiterates the need to recognize fair use aspects of plot summaries: they should be concise, and they should be used in context of educational content (reviews + other facets of a show). --Masem (t) 19:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The specific edit which has spurred this is being discussed on the Titans talk page. The latest episode of Titans was released on pay site DC Universe, and an editor wrote a summary. Jack Sebastian is under the impression that being behind a paywall makes the plot summary unverifiable, and would rather we wait for online reviews. That is not a thing. Also, his above concerns about interfering with the profit-making ability of a show when we post details ahead of general broadcast are, well, ridiculous. Release on the DC Universe site is general broadcast, and we don't concern ourselves with spoilers or "profit-making ability". Masem, I'm assuming that when you talk about the notability of episodes, you mean as related to creating individual articles for them, not adding summaries to episode lists.— TAnthony^Talk 19:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Correct: if it is an episode list, I am assuming that the notability of the series and/or season has been established (Which, where I can see when even asking about commercial viability, will be on shows of high interest and ergo , on notable shows). --Masem (t) 19:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

In another discussion, Izno just reminded me that WP:SOURCEACCESS states Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange). — TAnthony^Talk 21:02, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 1)

Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Television article splitting part 2

Charmed (2018 TV series) has been split into season articles and a list of episodes article again. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 29#Television article splitting. I still don't think anything has changed significantly that would warrant splitting into season articles and a list of episodes page yet. Based on MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH still apply. Thoughts? — YoungForever^(talk) 14:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The Season 1 article is valid, its length is currently at almost 90k. The Episodes and Season 2 article are far from valid; there's almost no Season 2 content, and there's no reason why the two tables cannot be displayed on the parent article. This exact sort of reason is why we created MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television). -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that the readable prose in the season 1 article is only 7.6kB. Wiki text is not the same as readable prose. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

True, but then we have List of Episode articles that consist solely of transcluded articles and thus contain almost no readable prose. By that standard, we should not split such articles, even if there's 30 seasons, because none of it is readable prose. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is that it is still WP:TOOSOON to split into season articles and a list of episodes article. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't follow that show, but since the show has only aired 1 season as of now, most of the real world information of the current Charmed (2018 TV series, season 1) is a duplication of Charmed (2018 TV series) (or should be in the show's main article anyway). If (and only if!) season 2 has wildly different real-world information, then I can imagine supporting individual season article. But now, no! – sgeureka ^t•c 15:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the season 1 article is pretty much copied and pasted from the TV series' main article. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Brojam went ahead and merged everything back to the main article yesterday for now. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal: police procedural

Comments are invited at Talk:Police procedural#Merger proposal. Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth are segments?

The term "segments" seems to get used a lot in kids TV programs and I've never really understood it. Now, somebody keeps adding the term to Melissa & Joey which is obviously not a kids' program.[1][2][3][4][5][6] I fail to see how 156 segments relates to 104 epiosdes. Is this just pure vandalism or is there some site that uses the term? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

First off, Melissa & Joey did not have "segments", so that's wrong. Now... many of the (children's) animated series have two (and sometimes more) "segments", or "sub-episodes" if you will, per single broadcast "episode". SpongeBob SquarePants is a good example of this – two "segments" per episode. Disney Channel's Big City Greens is another example of this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I am pretty sure Melissa & Joey did not have "segments", I watched the TV series when it was still airing new episodes. Also, I don't it is appropriate to include the number of segments on the Infobox television as TV series go by number of episodes rather than segments. Segments are within an episode. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox (cast section)

As per the discussion over at Talk:Smallville#Cast Section Bloat isn't it about time a rule was set for when the infobox becomes to full or cluttered with cast that we instead link the cast to a seperate header or article. 10 cast? 15? 20? Just an idea so there is more consistency on all televsion articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.183.174 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't require a "hard limit" in MOS:TV, IMO. I think, in general, when the list gets to be longer than 10 starring cast in the infobox, then there should be a discussion about it on the Talk page. But I don't think a "hard" numerical limit is necessary or productive.

P.S. There's a similar issue with excessive listing cast in TV series articles' ledes – I know Amaury and I have had discussions about this. But the lede shouldn't just contain a long "laundry list" of cast – when you're listing more than half-a-dozen or so cast members in the same sentence, it's time to figure out another way to present that information, or determine whether a smaller subset of the main cast should only be mentioned in the lede... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Particularly for a series that you know the end of, so you can look back and evaluate, in a situation like this I would focus on the cast members that were main cast for more than half the seasons. Something like Smallville would likely end up w/ 6-7 names after that consideration. But its hard to make a consistent rule for this, and common sense should just be, if you have more than 10, start figuring out a more exclusive criteria. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In the case of Smallville, one way to do it is to just list Welling – he played (basically) the titular character, and was the only one there for every season. Below him, you could link to the 'Cast' section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

In my scheme, you'd have Welling, Kruek, Rosenbaum, Mack, Glover, and Durance. Maaaybe O'Toole and Schneider (can't remember if they were credited as main cast or not). All central characters to the long term arcs of the show. --Masem (t) 19:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Television ratings graph‎" and "Series overview" templates

A heads up, I've updated the {{Television ratings graph‎}} template to use Template:Graph:Chart, which can be viewed on mobile, instead of the deprecated (or soon to be) previous method of graphing, which had a lot of issues. I've also updated {{Series overview}} to support and create tables for multi-series franchises (such as the table at Arrowverse). If my changes have caused any errors, please let me know! Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Click online - Wikipedia episode Click_(TV_programme)#State_interference_in_Wikipedia

Hi

I have added a section as the whole episode was about Wikipedia and bad actor influence.

The episode is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m00091w2/click-short-edition-05102019

I am unsure if non-UK viewers will be able to watch it?

Can someone go and check the article for NPOV please? :¬)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.jpg at FFD

The FFD discussion about "File:SteveRhoadesBoresTheCourt.jpg" has been ongoing for 30 days since the nomination. I invite you for input in effort to improve the consensus. George Ho (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Big Brother season article format

After requesting for Big Brother 20 (American season) and Big Brother 21 (American season) to be assessed and after they both received C class status, I asked how they could be upgraded further. Bilorv informed me that almost no reality television articles on Wikipedia actually conform to our MOS and that the "Format", "HouseGuests", "Episodes" and "Voting history" might all seem sensible ideas individually, but together they form a collection of indiscriminate information about the show which is way overboard (See full discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Assessment#Big Brother 21 (American season)). Bilorv brought up problems with the structure of season articles and how it hasn't been updated since 2007. He mentioned, "My worry is that 2007 precedent is not a sufficient basis for our 2019 article quality scheme," which I agree with.

The aim of this discussion is whether we should use, abandon, or rewrite Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Structure of series or season articles. Jayab314 16:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I would caution that this would subsequently apply to nearly all competitive reality shows (Survivor, Top Chef, Project Runway, etc. which have some variation on that format). An issue is that these are less fictional shows with the same production path that your average TV series get, and more closer to how a sports event would be presented, so there may need to be exceptions from the standard MOS here. I do think some shows get far too much in the weeds of trying to describe the drama of the competition over the substance (eg this is where the summaries of The Amazing Race series tend to avoid and thus much better), and that should be a focus of any MOS discussion. --Masem (t) 16:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should apply to all such reality shows, but I think we wanted to narrow the focus to work out what to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Structure of series or season articles specifically. I think the reason it's acceptable to have a lot more sports statistics is due to the widespread international secondary coverage from commentators and news reports; shows like BB might be dubbed in other languages, but are never commentated on and analysed in the same depth and breadth. In that way, reality shows are much more similar to game shows (particularly tournament-based ones like University Challenge), which we never have episode-by-episode tables or tournament breakdowns for. WP:IINFO says "Summary-only descriptions of works" should be avoided, using the term "creative works" and listing non-fictional documentaries as an example, so that's the basis of my reasoning for its applicability. — Bilorv (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Honestly like Bilorv said that page is still working on 2007-ish guidelines and it hasn't been updated in years. This page does need to be re-written as a supplement to MOS:TV. @Jayab314: When I split Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) from Big Brother (American TV series) I was WP:BOLD and essentially only followed MOS:TV for the most part. I also used articles like Family Trade (only FA reality TV article) and Game of Thrones (TV series) as guides. The format of Love Island (American season 1) is the only season article that seems to follow current MOS:TV that I've seen. I would recommend making "Format" and "Islanders" the first and second sections respectively based on Family Trade's layout. In my sandbox I created an alternate layout for Big Brother 21 based on the layout of MOS:TV only thing I did differently was split the "House" section into "Filming" (for technical/location info that hasn't changed year to year) and "Production design" (merges theme and season specific house design into one section.) I took out all the sections about all the twists because they were already summarized in the "Episodes" section and more complex twists are adequately explained in the "Voting history" table. For some instances like Prank Week I placed the specific pranks with their respective episode summaries like Episode 28 for example. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

One reason why I haven't updated that page yet is there is still work going on to fix all the naming conventions for the international versions to match WP:NCTV. I'm also wanting to have a "proof of concept" before proposing a re-write of that page to the project. That's why I've been focusing my efforts on Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) and its related articles as it is the smallest series. My goal is to follow MOS:TV as much as possible and get the parent article to GA status, List of Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series) episodes to FL-status and at least 1 season article (either Celebrity Big Brother 1 (American season) or Celebrity Big Brother 2 (American season)) to GA status based on current MOS:TV guidelines. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Alucard 16. I think your sandboxed BB21 draft is a good layout to use. With that particular article, I think there would still be concerns with "Reception" being little more than a renamed Controversy section, and there would be a need to cut down the minutiae of each controversy and introduce any other critical reception that exists, but the layout lends itself quite easily to these changes. — Bilorv (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If those are the only problems that need to be fixed, this is much simpler than I thought we were going to have to do. Although, Bilorv, for a season full of controversies that were brought up on live episodes twice, the controversies that appeared during those live shows must be shown and explained (Ex: the Week 3 incident section). All other controversies (Ex: the Animal cruelty and PETA section) are not necessary. That is an easy fix, as well. Jayab314 16:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: I also went ahead and changed the Format and Islanders sections to be the first and second sections on Love Island (American season 1) like you recommended. Jayab314 16:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My issue with the controversies is that I think the section is currently twice as long as it should be, so however it can be halved while preserving due weight is the right move. It might be that everything can stay but a couple of controversies should only have a sentence or two and the others should be at most a paragraph in length. Or it might be that some are less important and should be removed, and the others made more concise. — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I see no major problems on Alucard's sandbox, and basically adheres to a reasonable structure applied to other competitive reality shows: Format, "Cast" (appropriate to the show, with summary of final placement), Production, Episodes with reasonably adherance to MOS plot length guidance in terms of any non-structured part of the reality show, "Results" (Again, applicable to the show), Ratings, Reception, and if necessary Home Media/etc. Most of the reality shows I'm aware mostly have problems with having Results before Episodes, and bloated per-episode descriptions that go beyond the factual elements of the show. eg The Apprentice (American season 7) has problems in both areas.

I stress the "factual" parts of the show as for a show like The Amazing Race 1 we have an actually good opportunity to wikilink and help inform people that may watch it,which may make the episode summary exceed 400 words but still concise and avoiding extraneous nonsense and drama in the show. The key is to minimize the "drama" parts of reality television unless they are critical for how a player leaves the game (eg tribe manipulations at Survivor). --Masem (t) 18:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

So when are we going to implement Alucard 16's sandbox into the article? I would prefer as soon as possible. After that, we can work on the controversy section. (Note: Please only replace the sections that were changed and do not copy and paste your whole sandbox to the article as I just finished updating the ratings and added 6,000+ bytes. The updated ratings are not updated on the sandbox. Thanks!) Jayab314 21:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want, I can edit the sandbox to show the updated ratings. Jayab314 21:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the ratings. Jayab314 21:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Masem, Bilorv, and Alucard 16: I'm pretty sure I fixed everything that was brough up in this discussion. If I missed anything let me know. Also, if you don't mind, can someone please take a look at the article and maybe give feedback on it. Thanks! Jayab314 01:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Series overview information cells

Hey all. I'm considering deprecating the |infoheader= parameter from the {{Series overview}} template. Currently, we currently use the parameter by using the code

{{Series overview |infoheader=Ratings |infoA=Average viewers |infoB=Rank and {{Series overview |infoheader=Average viewers

to generate

Season	Episodes		Originally aired		Average viewers	Rank

Season	Episodes		Originally aired

respectively. The information header is forgone when there's only one column of information (but we still have to use |infoheader= instead of |infoA=), and displayed when there's two or more columns (requiring us to use |infoheader=, |infoA=, |infoB=, etc). This can become buggy when an editor uses |infoheader= and |infoA= together when there's only one column, by using

{{Series overview |infoheader=Ratings |infoA=Average viewers

which generates the faulty

Season	Episodes		Originally aired		Average viewers

However, (and the following scenarios are testcases from a sandbox), we can use

{{Series overview |infoA=Average viewers |infoB=Rank and {{Series overview |infoA=Average viewers

to generate

Season	Episodes		Originally aired		Average viewers	Rank

Season	Episodes		Originally aired		Average viewers

respectively, which provides less confusion of which parameters to include and exclude, by just using |infoA= through |infoZ=, and provides a more uniform layout when taking into consideration the number of information cells. It also allows us to include information columns that may not have any relation to each other, and thus no need for a confusing information header. Furthermore, it also allows the new multi-series franchise series overviews to have extra information columns without a header such as "Series information", given that the whole overview is information about the series (this is the same scenario as the previous sentence: information columns that may not have any relation and no confusing/redundant information header), as seen

Series	Season	Episodes		Originally aired		Showrunner(s)	Status

Would there be any opposition to this, or any further comments or concerns? Let me know! Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

So in short, by deprecating |infoheader=, there will be no functionality lost because there is still |infoA= through |infoZ=? I wouldn'd mind. I'll say though that it took me while to figure out a working parameter solution for the current system when a season was split into parts, and something should still work in such a situation after you made your prosed edits. (We met when you edited List of Money Heist episodes.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! Removing |infoheader= will simply remove the need for a header above the information cells, allowing them to stand alone and not cause any breakages or confusion on what parameters should or shouldn't be included. The article List of Money Heist episodes won't be affected at all by the proposed deprecation, as the parts column uses the |aux= parameters rather than the |info= parameters; several articles now use those parameters for "Part" numbers, including The Ranch (TV series). -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping the "Ratings" header or removing it, but if this change also removes the need for the new "Series details" header for multi-series uses, then I support the change, as that header isn't helpful. --Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's no further comments, I'll go ahead in a couple days and remove the parameter, then run through with AWB to update the necessary articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: - One side effect of removal of this header is the removal of references, as happened here, here and here. References shouldn't be removed. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Can easily be restored as such -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as somebody notices.[7] You should be fixing hese as you do your AWB run. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Catch 21 GAR

Catch 21, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Last aired parameter for TV series

There is a discussion at Talk:One-Punch_Man#End_date_and_Season_3 regarding the last_aired parameter of {{Infobox television}} and the language in the template's documentation as well as WP:TVPRESENT. Please join the discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Can you please summarize this discussion for us, please? Is the idea here that, in the absence of an explicit renewal announcement, we should switch to assuming a show is "cancelled" (and thus "ended" after the last first-run episode has aired) rather than assuming a show is renewed" and waiting 12 months to see if this is the case or not?... Because if that's what this discussion is about, it needs to be a much wider discussion than a discussion at a single TV show article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: My understanding is that, currently, the guidelines say to wait 12 months before changing last_aired from "present" to {{end date}}. Sk8erPrince feels that this should not be the case and, if I understand correctly, that after any season ends that date should be used for the last_aired parameter until a new season begins. Blue Pumpkin Pie noted that WP:ANIME has separate rules and I do now see that Template:Infobox_animanga/Video has different documentation for this. Perhaps this whole point is moot, but now I find it odd that we treat one type of TV series differently from the rest. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:ANIME is effectively a "sub"-project of WP:TV, so they should not have separate "rules". WP:ANIME has been doing a number of things (e.g. article titling) incorrectly for years now, and several of us have been trying to bring them into compliance. They should not have a separate "rule" like this without a very good reason, and not unless the wider WP:TV group agrees to it. The whole "OVA" topic is another problematic area for which there's no real consensus, and WP:ANIME has been doing whatever what they want with these, whether it makes any sense or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really passionate about this topic. But i personally don't consider WP:ANIME is not a sub-project of WP:TV. WP:TV covers basically anything TV-related, however, WP:ANIME covers manga, anime, and anything directly related to them. In a sense, it's for pop-culture media that is exclusive to Japan. But that is just my interpretation.

There is a very good reason why we shouldn't list anything as "Present" in the TV infobox just because there is no word of cancellation or 12 months of silence. The vast majority of modern anime TV-series are planned for one or two seasons. They are not planned out to continue and every season is potentially their last. Every time a season has finished airing, the expectation of a second or third season isn't solidified until it's been officially announced.

its closer to Netflix model. I realize this isn't a perfect comparison, but i hope you understand.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, there should be ample sourcing indicating that a certain anime series is only planned to run 1–2 seasons. IOW, the fact that it's ending should be easily sourceable in the first place... And, yes – the "anime" portion of WP:ANIME does clearly fall under WP:TV's auspices, including WP:NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

When I said they planned for 1-2 seasons, I'm not saying they have no intention of continuing the anime. Some modern anime is designed to leave room for a new season, yet still designed to being complete if a new season wasn't renewed. Similar to how Stranger Things first season was designed to being both open ended but also conclusive. For anime, the status quo isn't that its still continuing. The status quo after a season is finished is that it is complete until renewed for a new season. At least thats how its been for modern anime. I know in the past it was closer to western series like with One Piece, Dragon Ball, Naruto, and Bleach.

I can write a whole essay on how different the japanese animation industry is different from the Western and how they apply different rules and standards. I can understand why you apply this rule to western series because its just more common for a renewal of a second season and not designed to conclude. And because its that common, it treats it as common sense. Its just not common in anime.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

BPP is not wrong. Anime seasons are released in クール (Cours) of typically 13 episodes. It is common for anime to be done in 1 or 2 cour installments, with possible future cours. I'm not convinced that means the WP:TVPRESENT should be altered for this, but this is the (current) norm for anime. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's an ANN report that sheds more light on the nature of modern anime broadcasting. This could be treated as a reliable source because it was published by an industry professional. To quote the report: In order to limit the risk to the companies on these committees, each season is planned out at only a finite 11-13 episodes. If the show is a hit, additional seasons can be ordered down the line. If the show tanks, each member of the committee is only out for the cost of a single season -- and often that cost can be made up through international rights sales, home video, and whatever small number of merchandise items managed to get released.

In other words, in the absence of an explict sequel confirmation, it is better to mark the broadcast as ended, instead of still ongoing. We are presenting erroneous information that does not reflect the present state of things, otherwise. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not WP:ANIME is a sub-part of WP:TV is irrelevant. If you're using {{Infobox television}} you should be using it in accordance with the instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. The thing is, it may be a good idea to switch all "end date" reporting to a system like this – i.e. assume cancellation, without an explicit renewal announcement, and put an "end date" after the last aired episode (this might solve some problems with shows on channels like Nick and Disney). But this requires a wider consensus across all of WP:TV to do this. Again, we can't have one set of rules for WP:ANIME and another set of rules for the rest of WP:TV. That's AussieLegend's point... But, on my end, I'd probably be willing to have a wider discussion about whether WP:TVPRESENT should be revised, what with the changes in the TV industry and all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It does seem strange to assume it isn't canceled even after 11 months of no renewal information, rather than assume it ended ("ended" here does not mean officially canceled) until RS report that it's renewed. Seems much more in-line with WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. --Gonnym (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Might be worth having a WP:RfC on WP:TVPRESENT. Not sure if there should be an attempt at a wider discussion first (and, if so, where such a discussion should be held...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: If that is true, then there is no reason to have this discussion. One-Punch Man isn't using that template. It's using {{Infobox animanga}}.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We really don't need an RFC when the template has *very* clear instructions on what to do with the dates. Quoting the instructions in the explanation box on the "last" row: The first air date of the series's last episode on its original Japanese network. Only insert the last episode's date after it has happened. Leave empty if the series is ongoing or renewed. Check out the chart here. (Or check the template page yourself and you'll see that I'm not making this up)

BPP is absolutely correct that we have our own set of rules when it comes to anime. Yes, anime series are broadcast on television, but we use a unique infobox *specifically* for anime series, and the template has also documented clear instructions on what to do. Hence, it is okay to disregard the instructions in {{Infobox television}}, since it clearly doesn't apply here. I'm going to boldly restore the end date on the One Punch Man article, since there is no announcement on season 3, and that it is clear that the series is neither ongoing nor renewed at the moment. This discussion is over. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Updating WP:TVPRESENT guideline (non-anime)

I want to clarify i have nothing against updating guidelines. if it will be beneficial for WP:TV to have this discussion and improving their guidelines, then you can count me in on that vote.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't be leaving "ongoing" in the infobox of any TV series once its ended, regardless of where it is from, unless of course we have a source that it has been renewed. It would certainly be better than assuming that its been renewed just because the production company haven't annonced their renewals yet. And regardless of the different templates, if the idea ends up becoming that the {{Infobox animanga}} should follow similar rules to {{Infobox television}} then we end up reporting Anime as ongoing when they aren't, especially since anime companies hardly ever actually make a confirmation that a series is cancelled (I mean some have disappeared for seven years and then gotten a third season so...).

To be honest, I'm in favour of changing the rule to being that we put in the final episode's air date if we don't have any confirmation of renewal.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

In the short-term, it's better to assume a series is continuing rather than a series has ended or been canceled. That's why we wait a year to tag a series as over in those cases where we have no official confirmation. Although even that's not 100% foolproof, as Bubble Guppies, a series that was assumed to have ended in 2016, was renewed earlier this year and is now airing new episodes. Claiming that a series is over immediately following a season's end is entirely WP:OR, unless a network has officially confirmed a series' ending or cancellation. Likewise, it is also WP:OR to assume a series will only run for one or two seasons, unless, again, a network officially confirms it, and even then, you still need further official announcements stating when the final episode will air. The guidelines are fine as they are and shouldn't be changed. Amaury • 16:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Except that that still leads to confusion, speically on the anime side of things where it is pretty much an unspoken rule that any 12-13 episode anime season is simply advertising for the source material. I mean the vast majority of titles don't get sequals, and so if you come to a page about a recent anime and see ongoing after its ended, you are sending the message that its getting another season, where as the end date simply tells the reader that currently this is when the last episode aired, and no new season has been confirmed at this point. I think its safer and more inline with WP:OR to say that this is the last date a series aired on as currrently known than to have "ongoing" and tell people that there is more to come when we have no proof there is--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Unspoken "rules" are not good enough for Wikipedia. They're WP:OR. And using that logic, after every time a new episode airs, we should place an end date since there are no more new episodes until the next time a new episode premieres. There are plenty of series that aren't renewed until after the current season has ended. So hypothetically, a series' season ends and we place an end date on the series. Then two weeks after that season ends, it is officially announced that the series is renewed for another season and we remove that end date. It's a lot of unnecessary steps. Amaury • 16:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The unspoken rule Ditto51 is referencing isn't related to the guidelines. There is proper sources out there that explain how broadcast system works for anime and how its different from western series. It wouldn't have any more steps other than following what the sources say. If anything the current rule looks like a shortcut to just not keep track of renewal status. But WP:TV is very very very broad. You're probably thinking about all the series that continuously get renewed without question. But it might be more beneficial (even if its just slightly more work) to keep track of renewals for something like Netflix shows.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, I agree with BPP. Amaury, I am afraid you seriously do not understand how anime broadcasting works. Please read the instructions in {{Infobox animanga}}, as well as the ANN report I've linked above. Your logic is also incredibly flawed because there is literally a schedule that we could refer to on the anime's official website when it comes to broadcast dates; hence, we *only* list the end date when the season concludes. In most cases, one anime episode is broadcast weekly unless stated otherwise. Listing the end date when the season concludes is done in accordance to the instructions in the Animanga infobox. Why are we having this discussion again, when crystal clear instructions have already been documented?

There is no WP:OR here. Read up. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion everyone, i was responding to this as an approach to updating WP:TV's own guidelines for the benefit of their articles.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. ... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." That's from WP:V, a core policy. "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." That's from WP:OR. If you put in an end date without being able to support it with a citation that explicitly says the series ended on that date, it's OR. We had this discussion when we updated the instructions to what they are now. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

But it can be equally argued that it's WP:OR to "assume" a show has been renewed (and is thus "ongoing") without an explicit renewal announcement. The days of the "three channel universe", where a show could assumed to be "renewed" until is was explicitly cancelled, is long since over. That's why a new discussion on WP:TVPRESENT may be merited. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes and no. Effectively, a source is required to support a change of state. In the case of The Penguins of Madagascar we had reliable sources confirming the production of episodes that had not aired so no source so it wasn't OR to assume that the season hadn't ended. We needed a source to confirm that it had ended. In the case of most programs we have sources confirming season renewals before the current season ends. When we don't get a renewal or cancellation notice we can't assume that it has ended OR been renewed and the program sits in limbo until we get one or the other. That's why the 12 month rule came in. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Is that an outlier or the standard case? Again, we have to address that not every situation is going to be the same.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then surely we need another answer to go in that box instead of the most recent episode airdate or "ongoing" because both imply something that isn't the case. Different shows have different unwritten rules in how networks handle them (Western shows like Flash, Arrow, NCIS, etc are normally known before the end of the season or within a few weeks of the end; kids shows don't have TV seasons and can be completely random like with the examples of Bubble Guppies and Penguins of Magascar being seemingly dead for longer than the year we allow and then coming back later on; and then anime which don't annonce cancelations only renewals (because the industry assumes cancellation unless told otherwise) and where series could get renewed seven years down the line like A Certain Magical Index and the resr of that series). So maybe we need to put down the last date and put a note that says no offical confirmation of cancellation, or keep ongoing for a year but leave a note that says that there isn't offical confirmation of the series being renewed.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 18:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a Schrödinger's cat problem: right now, we (in the WP:TV project) are interpreting "limbo" to mean "not cancelled". But we could just as easily switch that to "limbo" meaning "not renewed". Again, it just depends on how we treat the "limbo" case – arguments can be made either way, but I'm thinking in modern contexts, interpreting "limbo" to mean "not renewed" might be the better solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we're equating "limbo" with "not cancelled or renewed". i.e. We don't know because we don't have reliable sources either way and we can't make a decision until we do or 12 months has passed. The "or 12 months has passed" part was what we added several years ago. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: In my humble opinion, it is OR to assume a series is continuing for 11 months without any new information more than it is to say the Seasons have been completed with no confirmation of another. The former is based on our personal research and interpretations, the latter is based on citations and verifiability. We could be potentially giving false information to readers for 11 months for many articles.

If we follow the same process WP:ANIME is using, getting just a simple confirmation of renewal or that it's in production is much easier to cite for keeping a series in present/ongoing status. There's less inaccurate information given using this method. Adding the season's last aired date doesn't have to infer that the series is canceled or that it's complete. Another benefit is we don't have to wait 12 months of zero information to change the ongoing/status, we just wait until we have reliable information. information on a season renewal or that it's in production is commonly given with the first 6 months if not the first 2.

I think another problem is that "No. of Seasons" and "No. of Episodes" are separated from "Original Release" in the {{Infobox television}}. It would be a good idea to those two parameters be moved underneath the "Original Release" parameter if we do decide to follow WP:ANIME's method. It could present the information more clearly to readers on the situation of the series.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I understand your arguement, Amaury, in regards to episode to episode changing of the enddate. If I am understanding what you're saying is that we would have to change the enddate after each episode airs which isn't what I'm saying at all. If you know that a series has been renewed for so many episodes then you don't put the enddate in until after the final known episode has ended. Lets use Arrow as an example: We don't change the enddate between episodes 1 and 2 of season 8, we only change the end date once episode 10 ends.

That might be a bad example, because we know Arrow is ending, but the point still stands for if we didn't know that.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually annoyed that this is even a discussion at all. If a show uses {{Infobox television}}, then follow the instructions within the template. Anime articles adhere to the instructions in {{infobox animanga}}. Since the Animanga template instructs users to list the end date when the season concludes, in the absence of renewal announcements, we are going to do exactly just that. There is nothing wrong with following the guidelines as they are written. Nowhere in the Animanga template does it say that we have to wait one year for renewal announcements until we're allowed to input the end date. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not just a template documentation, it's also a guideline that has been linked multiple times. And yes, ANIME has to follow TV project guidelines. We apologize for "annoying" you with these guidelines that tens of thousands of articles follow. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

For now, let's forget about WP:ANIME. For now, let's discuss whether its beneficial to follow this new proposal for all of WP:TV or not. Because this opened up a can of worms no one was expecting. If the status quo remains, we can discuss how independent WP:ANIME is from WP:TV. But its just not beneficial to discuss about that about now. I vote for an RfC for this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Weeds episode naming issue

I've encountered an issue with a conflicting episode title and not sure which one should be listed in the episode list. Yeah, Like Tomatoes, an episode from the second season of Weeds, has different titles used by different sources. Netflix uses "Yeah, Just Like Tomatoes"; IMDB uses "Yeah, Like Tomatoes"; The Futon Critic uses "Yeah. Like Tomatoes". Which one should be used? --Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be leaning towards believing Futon Critic is correct because it uses the name from the press release. That said, Netflix is also a reliable source and it's possible the name was changed later on. In cases like this it's best to list both names and both references since we can't arbitrarily decide one is more correct than the other. This happened all the times with MythBusters when it was airing and I've seen it happen with other programs too.

Personally, I'd say list The Futon Critic's titles, given their official press-release status, then add header notes to the respective episodes (or the entire column) stating that the title differs between different sources. Same format as A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series)'s episode table. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks both. Added a note to the title. --Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Story/Teleplay credit formatting

For those interested in maintenance, I have created Category:Episode lists with unformatted story or teleplay credits, for where articles are using |WrittenBy=''Story by'': Ken Daly and John Matta<br />''Teleplay by'': Ken Daly, John Matta and Jon Colton Barry instead of |WrittenBy={{StoryTeleplay|s=Ken Daly and John Matta|t=Ken Daly, John Matta and Jon Colton Barry}}. The current count is 1,000+ articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019. Discussion is about whether you can have a "List of episodes" article without having a "TV series" article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Audience, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Movies Shown on TV

On the List of programs broadcast by YTV, it has a section listing movies and specials that have aired on the network. Specials is one thing, but listing movies that have aired is WP:LISTCRUFT and unnecessary. I don't see any reason to keep a list of movies aired. No other lists with programming for networks have such a thing. Why have it for this network? Seems redundant and will never be complete as movies have been shown for decades. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A lot of these TV channel/network lists are pointless. They should only list first run shows and movies and not reruns, syndication or anything else that was aired somewhere else first. --Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Why should movies be listed? That is WP:LISTCRUFT and those sections won't ever be satisfied because you won't be able to name every movie they've ever aired. Plus that section would get too big. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Because First run (filmmaking) is notable. If a film is released on Netflix, that isn't a trivial thing, it's the exact opposite. --Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: This isn't Netflix. Netflix is not a just a streaming service, but a film and television studio thus produce films and web series. Not even the same thing. YTV doesn't produce their own films. Again, it is WP:LISTCRUFT and has been removed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

TV guest spots in filmographies

Hey all, what is the project's attitude toward TV special appearances and guest spots being included in filmographies in actor bios? Is this part of a bigger question? I often see film or TV actor bios include things like appearing as a guest on a comedy talk show, or comedy variety show, or a reality show, or a dance show or something. See Pearl V Puri#Filmography or this edit. Is there any guidance on this written anywhere? Sometimes they show up in dedicated Special appearances subsections. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, there was this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_25#Guest_appearances_on_chat_shows_and_similar and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture/Archive_4#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers (season 10)

I need some pairs of eyes on this. As several editors keep adding WP:COPYVIO episode summaries and episode summaries of yet to air episodes WP: NOTCRYSTAL. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Episode table release dates

What's our consensus on series that are released in full on a streaming service first, then broadcast? War of the Worlds was released in full on MyCanal on October 28, is being broadcast weekly in double-batches from October 28 (to November 18, presumably), and is being advertised as being released in multiple countries in single-batches weekly from October 30 to December 18. What date/s should be listed in the episode table? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it would depend on "who" the series was produced for. It it was produced primarily for a streaming service, then the release date should be used. If it was produced primarily for a "terrestrial" or cable TV channel, then the broadcast air dates should be used. If it's a "co-production" between both... then I have no idea. But I'm assuming "MyCanal" is the streaming service of the Canal TV channel?... If so, I'd say to go with the air dates. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit fuzzy, really, as to who it was produced for (same as for how it's fuzzy as to what country produced it, per the last discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#The War of the Worlds. I guess it's similar to how Timeless and Anne both had episodes and seasons (respectively) released on Netflix before their respective episodes and seasons (respectively) aired on the origin Network. I've detailed the full-series release date in the appropriate section, so I'd have to agree with the air dates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the opinion of going with the first official (non-leak, pirated, etc.) release. This is supported by {{Infobox television}} which says The parameter is not restricted to a "premiere" date. In the event a program airs a full "preview" episode on TV in advance of a premiere, that date should be used instead. and Infobox film Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release. --Gonnym (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TVSHOW

A discussion has been created in WP:VPM#The line between WP:ANIME and WP:TVSHOW. Those who believe they need to voice their opinion on the matter is welcome to respond.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Neither the above discussion nor the move discussion at Talk:List of Toriko episodes#Requested move 26 October 2019 seem to be going anywhere so I'm considering an RfC to determine whether MOS:ANIME is subordinate to MOS:TV when it relates to anime TV programs. However, I would appreciate help formulating the RfC question. Thoughts anyone? All constructive contributions are welcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I already posted a sample RfC question in those discussions – it's basically: "Is WP:ANIME a sub-project of WP:TV and WP:COMICS, and therefore subject to the guidelines of the two parent projects?" This is basically the issue – Is WP:ANIME their own project that can do whatever they want? Or is it a subproject of the other two ("parent") WP's? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll take it one step further - WP:ANIME is not a top-level WikiProject but more of a multi-project task force made up of TV, Film and Comics. They should not have any original guidelines, as any part of their project should already be covered by one of the three project guidelines. --Gonnym (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

None of the guidelines contradict the current. But i'm willing to have this discussion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

An RfC is usually meant to get comments from other editors. It's pointless if it ends up being like the Village pump discussion, where the same editors are discussing at the RM and pump discussions.

@Gonnym: Is it stated anywhere that ANIME is a sub-project? I'm just trying to see how we can word the question so it's not overly complicated or ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to anything stated above, but looking at WP:ANIME#Scope MOS:AM#Scope says that This manual of style applies to articles about anime, manga, and related topics, and is a topic-specific subset Manual of Style of the following Manuals of Style: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies (where applicable) and later also Editors should also keep in mind the guidelines suggested on WikiProject Television or WikiProject Films, as those seem to work well for episodic media, including manga.. --Gonnym (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's strange. I can't find that text in the current version. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Have you been listening to what WP:ANIME has been trying to tell you? It's like talking to a wall. We've said multiple times that WP:ANIME does use other — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk • contribs) 09:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for that. The link is MOS:AM#Scope. --Gonnym (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

That's very interesting reading. I wonder if WP:ANIME editors have read it? --AussieLegend (✉) 07:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Everytime i see you three have a personal discussion, i notice more and more you don't even know what WP:ANIME's stance is. Editors from WP:ANIME have already confirmed that they are not violating WP:MOSTV or TVSPLIT. And we've expressed as well that WP:ANIME uses other MOS as a foundation of its own MOS. Any changes or exceptions to the other MOS are done sparingly and are using common sense. Common sense doesn't mean the majority of articles have one method, it just means that the decisions made were practical and sensible.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:11 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, good point: WP:FILM should also be included. The question can be amedned to: "Is WP:ANIME a sub-project of WP:TV, WP:FILM and WP:COMICS, and therefore subject to the guidelines of these parent projects?" --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the question should be "Should WP:TV allow exceptions for WP:ANIME to organize articles differently if it means providing more good-quality content. Because WP:ANIMe has not gone against any MOS.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:AXN (German TV channel), regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC discussion invitation

An RfC that affects your project has been opened at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Please review the discussion and contribute as you see fit. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Watchmen (TV series)#About starring cast order

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Watchmen (TV series)#About starring cast order. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Series overview tables at Marvel articles

• Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. § Release
• Agent Carter (TV series) § Release
• Daredevil (TV series) § Release
• Jessica Jones (TV series) § Release
• Luke Cage (TV series) § Release
• Iron Fist (TV series) § Release
• The Punisher (TV series) § Release
• Cloak & Dagger (TV series) § Release

Concerning the tables at the above Marvel Television articles, would these be considered series overview tables? They're simply raw wikicode, and identical to the display and layout that is given in {{Series overview}}; exactly what we use to do before the template was created. We changed to the template for a reason. They're an overview of each season, with episode count and premiere/finale dates (or the release data, in the case of the Netflix series). The first table even includes the timeslot, which is typically a feature of {{Television season ratings}}. List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes § Series overview even has a templated series overview, making its parent article's Release table redundant. If they are considered series overview tables, we typically always convert these tables to the template, and home media dates are not accepted in overview tables per MOS:TVOVERVIEW; a number of the tables are even classic series overviews with empty TBA cells for all the home media dates (see Cloak & Dagger). Should we be separating the home media dates and converting these tables to {{Series overview}}? -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

As these tables are in the Release section, I'd say they are NOT Series overview tables, and shouldn't conform to the MOS. However, a point could be made that these tables should be split into two tables: a {{Series overview}} table in the Episodes or Series overview section somewhere at the top, and a wiki table in the Home release section. I wouldn't fight local consensus for that step though. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused as to how their location affects what they are? They are tables that summarize into an overview table the details of the series, such as episodes and dates. If they were moved to a "Series overview" section, would it be a series overview table? Yes, because it's the same table. I strongly agree with the splitting of the raw wikicode table, however, into more MoS-conforming practices. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Location matters for the allowed scope of the table. Currently, they are tables that combine independent release data per season, which might be fine for a Release section. The series overview tables are usually in section that {{main}}-links to the LoE, and is (I guess) more about the show's structure and general data from the initial broadcast, i.e. the basis for the LoE. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

They contain exactly the same information. Series overview tables combine independent release data per season. If I moved the infobox to a different section, it doesn't stop being an infobox. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the current tables include extra Home media release info for each season, so it is not exactly the same information as a Series overview table, so the location of the table does matter for what the table may include. Anyway, it seems that all of us here are broadly agreeing that a table split into {{Series overview}} and another for Home media could be a solution; we're just disagreeing how much the current situation actually requires another solution. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it does include such, because that's how series overviews used to exist for years, with episodes, dates and home media releases, before the implementation of MOS:TVOVERVIEW and {{Series overview}}. Once the latter was implemented (that is, Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables. Such data can quickly overload a simple table and are not germane to our understanding of the series. Home media release information is best suited within their own section on the List of episodes article or main article.), home media dates were quickly removed from all series overview tables, either as a blank removal or a move to a separate table. How the tables in the above articles currently look is exactly how series overviews used to look before the home media guideline.

See an example here. How does the old series overview table linked in this diff differ to the current tables in the articles linked above? They don't. That is what I am arguing, that those current tables are a step backwards to before the guidelines that we currently use.

It does seem that we agree that it needs to be split into a templated series overview and a home media table. That's the solution that hundreds(/thousands) of television articles currently use, and thus that's the solution these articles should use to conform with standard practices. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Sgeureka – those should be separate tables. For example, the way it's handled at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. is particularly bad – you have an empty 'Episodes' section that contains only a link to List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes (this should never be done!) that doesn't even include the transcluded 'series overview' table from List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes, and then you have the awkward 'Release' table further down the page. The 'Release' table contains info that is redundant with a proper 'series overview table', while the 'series overview' table at the LoE article contains ratings info that should arguably be in yet another separate table. Jessica Jones (TV series) is another article where this seems to be handled badly. I agree that there should be a 'series overview' table, and a separate table for things like home video releases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that those are clearly series overview tables despite their location. In fact I've argued about this before. However, I do agree with Sgeureka that they should be split. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that they need to be split, preferably into {{Series overview}} for the episode counts and dates, and Home Media raw wikicode table for the home media dates. As for the ratings information... it's a common occurrence to include these in a series overview table, but there's further tables under the Reception sections in each article, the content of which is typically displayed in {{Television season ratings}}. I believe the article should just be converted to how the hundreds(/thousands) of television articles already display such data. Marvel articles are no different. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been ten days, so if there's no opposition, I'll go ahead and split the "Release" tables into separate {{Series overview}} and home media tables. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Index pages

I invite editors to share their opinion about index pages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Babylon 5 articles. Question: Are index pages an endorsed way to organize TV-related articles, or are they a relict of the past? – sgeureka ^t•c 02:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

More opinions on Infinity train

a discussion in talk:Infinity Train on whether a brief image shown in the HBOMax presentation is enough to include in the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Ratings of back-to-back episodes

This is regarding season 2 of The Masked Singer. I've put multiple message on the talk page about this (see here), but to summarize it up quickly- an episode was originally supposed to air on October 30, but was delayed to this week (November 6) due to a necessary Game 7 of the World Series. To avoid bumping the entire season up a week, FOX opted to air two back-to-back episode on November 6, the first from 8-9pm, and the second from 9-10pm. With multiple sources confirming it (again, see talk page messages), the episodes are listed separately as even FOX themselves list it as episode 5 and 6, which is why they are not listed together as "Mask Us Anything/Mask-ish" on the episode table.

With this comes a problem over how the viewership/ratings should be listed (see here for that discussion). The initial ratings Archived 2019-11-07 at the Wayback Machine on TV by the Numbers list them as to separate episodes, one from 8-9pm with 6.97m and the other from 9-10pm with 7.22m. The article further states that they are, "back-to-back episodes," and that they, "averaged 7.1 million viewers across the two episodes". However, their later final ratings Archived 2019-11-07 at the Wayback Machine list it as just one episode from 8-10pm, with 7.10m. The math works out correctly to the average (6.97 + 7.22 = 14.19, divide by 2 results in 7.095, which rounds to the 7.1 average).

The problem then comes to if initial ratings or final ratings should be used. While yes, I know the final ratings would be better off to use, the initial ratings list them off as two separate episodes, while the final ratings list it as just one two-hour episode and averages the separate ratings. As can be seen through the talk page, two users are saying the final ratings should be used, and give both episodes the 7.10. In my mind, that would be incorrect and not be going off of both sources- as the initial ratings give two different numbers for each episode, and that the final ratings they are changing it to to use 7.10 lists 7.10 as the average for both episodes combined as one- 8-10pm. With multiple sources confirming it, the episodes should definitely remain separate in the episode table, but how would this ratings problem be handled? This seems to be an interesting case, as with the Roseanne instance they give, both the initial ratings Archived 2019-11-08 at the Wayback Machine and final ratings Archived 2018-03-29 at the Wayback Machine list them as one episode, from 8-9pm- while The Masked Singer changes between the initial and final ratings. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The final ratings are reported how the network chooses to label the back-to-back episodes (unlike the initial/prilimary ratings, which most often separate them before the network chooses what they want) so we should be following the final ratings. - Brojam (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We should always follow the final ratings, not preliminary ratings. Preliminary ratings can be subject to change. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Brojam: That would be contradictory though. You say, "The final ratings are reported how the network chooses to label the back-to-back episodes"- yet on their website and YouTube channel, label them as episodes 5 and 6. So between the final ratings and official sites, they themselves apparently don't know which to refer to it as. Their advertising + social media and press release called it a two-hour episode, but is then listed as two one-hour episodes. If a Game 7 were not needed, "Mask Us Anything" would've aired the previous week, it was only made into a back-to-back so a week would not be lost. Magitroopa (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have been more clear. How they want their ratings for those episodes represented. A network can call it two episodes, but want it to only be represent in one ratings value, so thus we would list them as two different episodes but with the same averaged rating. (Also, another point, we don't have the separate final ratings so we really have no option but to use the averaged ratings.) - Brojam (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Then I assume a note like this would be appropriate to use if the final ratings must be used. With the finals ratings listing the 7.10 for "(8-10 p.m.)", if they are still listed as separate episodes in the table, then I would think that would solve it. If fine, the same should also be done for the Roseanne S10 premiere and any other similar cases. Magitroopa (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

You should never use the preliminary ratings, especially around this time of the year as they are often subject to downward adjustments for things like Sports preemptions in certain markets. For arguments sake if a television show was preempted in New York(The number one Nielsen market) it would result in a greater than usual adjustment. These sort of situations are fairly common for networks like ABC(On Mondays) & The CW which frequently has preemptions which are often a pain in the butt for fans in those markets and always results in adjustments down. Esuka (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Final ratings must always be used, for the reasons outlined by Esuka above. A note isn't really necessary. Just put 7.11 million, according to Showbuzz Daily Archived 2020-11-30 at the Wayback Machine, and be done with it. Amaury • 20:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Characters looking like animals without being animals

When it comes to characters who look like certain animals without being those animals, is it okay to use "-like" in their descriptions (for example: dog-like, cat-like, mouse-like, etc.)? 107.77.231.236 (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A specific example (e.g. an article or two) would be a help here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TV discussion

As the result of a recent failed move discussion regarding a television series, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Article hierarchy clarification with the aim of adding what should be simple clarification regarding article hierarchy to the MOS. All editors are invited and encouraged to participate, even if that is to just read what is written. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Episode list split for Letterkenny

I brought up a discussion to split the episode list for Letterkenny (TV series). Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Mitchell

Just wondering if anyone from this WikiProject has heard of this person. He's described as TV presenter from the UK, but I haven't found any real WP:SIGCOV about him. There appear to be some others who share his name so there's lots of hits, but not finding anything but trivial mentions. All of the article content is unsourced and it actually reads like something written by a fan; so, even if he meets WP:BIO, there's going to be lots of cleaning up to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't heard of him either to be honest. I agree with you 100% this article screams fan to me honestly. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• http://www.ukgameshows.com/ukgs/Nigel_Mitchell
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p001shvc
• http://nickalive.blogspot.com/2016/05/nigel-mitchells-first-ever-live.html

That's what i found on the internet on him. There are various sites with all the same content as here on wikipedia, seem to be very promotional. --Gyanda (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

"United States network television schedule" articles

How is it the "United States network television schedule" articles, such as 2018–19 United States network television schedule, use season terminology (summer, fall, winter, spring) in the tables despite MOS:SEASON? And how are these articles, or at least the schedule tables, not textbook WP:TVGUIDE? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You might like to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) before you decide to nominate these for deletion. Don't call them crufty. ;) --AussieLegend (✉) 11:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on nomination them for deletion, I was more wondering if it has been raised before. Apparently it has; thanks for the read. The first question also still applies. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, see a more recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). These are clearly violations of WP:TVGUIDE. --Gonnym (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason they use season terminology like fall, winter, spring and summer is due to the television industry using those terms when they announce their quarterly schedules. They have been proposed for deletion several times. In 2008 a group of late-night lists were sent through AfD and ended in no consensus. This 2009 discussion for all of them ended in the same way. The first 2012 discussion for all of them ended in no consensus as well. The 2015 discussion about the Saturday morning schedules resulted in keep. The only two that actually were successful at deleting any of those lists was this andthis discussions about the Saturday morning schedules. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

But they do remain violations of WP:TVGUIDE. Again, I'm not saying I want to delete the articles, but I think that the tables are questionable, and whether we should keep those sections. And the television industry may use those terms, but we aren't the television industry and we have our own guidelines on what terminology to use. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well... one of the reasons these lists have stayed around those who view them acceptable cite this portion of WP:NOTTVGUIDE #4 "...although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." In my opinion out of all them the only set I would view as significant is the prime time lists because the top 30 shows from each season are included here which is notable. Network performance based on ratings, number of shows cancelled vs renewed are often discussed and reported on. Daytime and late night however are not that significant. As far as the current terminology used to indicate the different quarterly schedules if there is a better way I'm all for that as long as it doesn't cause any original research concerns. I usually don't get involved with this lists so I really have no viewpoint on them either way. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with basically everything Alucard 16 has said. These are never going to be deleted for all of the reasons already given throughout the years. And MOS:SEASON is, again, a guideline, which means reasonable exceptions will apply, and in this case it's a reasonable exception because the U.S. TV industry has always referred to U.S. TV seasons using "Fall", "Winter" and "Summer" terminology, and there's really no other way to do it... That said, there is one big problem with these listings – all of them massively violate MOS:ACCESS with the way their tables are constructed. Unfortunately, I've never figured out a way to solve this problem, so with these tables at least, we may be stuck, unless somebody figures out a really clever way to rework these articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: Here is a proof-of-concept alternate layout for the network television schedule lists. I separated the top 30 programs out completely and put them in their own sortable table. By doing that one small change that eliminates 3 colors that were not in compliance with MOS:ACCESS. Also all the other colors had to be changed due to accommodate blue hyperlinks. I managed to find a series of six colors that would work with blue hyperlinks and would pass all MOS:ACCESS requirements (FYI none of the existing colors pass.) If you look at the Fall Sunday schedule I applied all colors to that table as an example on how they would look. Also for accessibility reasons and to improve reader experience I divided the schedules into 4 main sections (Fall, Winter, Spring & Summer) and each of those sections have their own table for Sunday - Saturday. I only split up Sunday & Monday across all 4 areas to fill in Tuesday - Saturday in each area I just copied its respective Monday table. This way it gives an idea how the page would look if this idea was actually adopted. If anyone else comes up with any better ideas (or colors) feel free to experiment with my sandbox I don't mind. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably better, but it still doesn't "fix" the 'rowspan' issue, which is the much bigger MOS:ACCESS problem with these... Honestly, there may be no way to fix it with these tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk)

Schedules are actually just really hard to do in general in an accessible way. Certainly so on our more-limited platform here. In this case, I'd recommend a {| role="presentation" ... and to move on from that piece. --Izno (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A note on the schedule articles like this is that we know there is usually discussion about shows competing against each other in time slots (remember way back to NBC's Must See TV block?), so these comparative schedules help for linking those up. The saturday AM ones were deleted as these competitions rarely were the subject of discussion for Sat AM shows. Primetime and daytime blocks are fair game, though, because of that type of coverage. --Masem (t) 19:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Mythology of Stargate

Taskorce seems dead, so figured this would be better here. Does anyone familiar with this series think this article has any potnetial? It seems to currently be just a list of non-notable minor topics all shoved together. There are bits and pieces of production info, but nothing like Mythology of Carnivàle or Mythology of The X-Files (though that one needs some work). TTN (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I have tons and tons of TV Zone Stargate editions and a Season 5+6 Companion guide, and I know GateWorld had many interviews with the producers. I'll give it a thorough look (mostly because I also wondered recently what SG topics/articles are still suitable for WP nowaways). – sgeureka ^t•c 18:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The TV Zones and the companion guide had nothing in relation to mythology except for the then newly introduced Ori (Stargate), for whom I already added material in 2007-ish. However, I found Stepping Through the Stargate on my bookshelf (ISBN 1-932100-32-6), for which even Daniel Dennett contributed an article. That book is filled with usable material in regards to mythology, see my list at Talk:Mythology of Stargate#Possible sources for improvement. Because of the abundance of production design info elsewhere, a point could also be made to refocus the Mythology article into a Civilizations of Stargate article. However, a more prominent problem are some of the individual SG race articles and, as always, cruft. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Adventure Time: Distant Lands about episode summaries

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Adventure Time: Distant Lands#Paraphrase. The question is: Are we allowed to paraphrase press release descriptions of episodes for the episode summaries before they have aired? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Feminist television

What is the purpose of this category? How does a TV article qualify for the category? And if it's added to an article, what legitimate reason needs to be provided for deleting it? Pyxis Solitary (yak) 07:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

idea: wikiproject Netflix

Hi guys, I was wondering if anyone had considered a WikiProject Netflix? In the vein of the successful Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC, and obviously with a bit different scope given the alternative format and history of Netflix different to traditional networks. There's plenty scope, lots of quality articles, and an abundance of editors who work on Netflix-produced media more specifically, perhaps because of an equal abundance of available coverage because of the international nature. I think it could work, but wanted to ask. Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No to a new wikiproject, neutral to a new taskforce. All to often, wikiprojects start enthusiastically and develop and uphold local consensuses disregarding established guideless. And once enthusiasm has died down, WP:WPTV has to come in and fix the left-behind mess. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for creating a task force for Nexflix. I'm a bit weary at idea of new WikiProjects because one of child WikiProjects I'm a member of is currently undergoing cleanup. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 17:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I support a task force, too - I didn't want to be stepping on any WP:TV toes, why I proposed a separate project. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sgeureka and Alucard 16: As you are involved below with the taskforce discussion, I'd like to ask if there any specific processes for making one within WP:TV, beyond announcing it and making the page? Many thanks. Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I just discovered this merge proposal that has been in limbo since September. It could really do with more eyes and opinions. On a related note, List of Wagas episodes needs converting to use {{Series overview}} and {{Episode list}}. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

 Templated and !voted -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Being:Mike Tyson

I've been working on the user sandbox draft User:Marchjuly/sandbox/Being: Mike Tyson for quite some time, but I haven't been able to find any real rating info or critical reviews of the series in major RSs. I did ask about this once before here at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 22#Being:Mike Tyson, but still haven't had much luck other than this and blogs, etc. The series is now available on Amazon Prime and also available on Blu-ray, but I'm not sure if those things are good enough for this to meet WP:TVSERIES. If there's really not enough about this for it to be a viable article, then I can just blank the usd. I also could move it to the draft namespace if there are others willing to work on it. I thought about moving it to the mainspace, but don't want to do so if it's going to end up at AfD shortly thereafter. Anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The Good Place numbering

The Good Place article lists the series double episodes, such as Everything Is Great!, as ep1 and ep2, with a note saying that the on-screen title card splits them into 2 chapters. The official site lists only 12 episodes in that season and not 13, as does IMDB, while Futon Critic does call them 201 and 202. How should these be numbered? Does the season have 12 episodes or 13 episodes? --Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say go by NBC, and corroborate with Netflix (released internationally in line with NBC). Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Can currently see only the first 2 seasons on Netflix in my region, so for the season two episode above, it's also only 1 episode and 12 total. Seems then that the episode entries should be merged. --Gonnym (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This is general WP:TV practice on the question – if the two episodes aired with two different sets of credits, then we count them as "two separate back-to-back episodes"; if however the episodes aired with just one set of credits, then we treat it like "one double-length episode". So the question here really is – did these two episodes air with one set or credits, or two? If the former, then, yes, they should be merged in the table into "one episode" listing (with the two prod. codes shown in that column). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the current specific issue, isn't that original research? If the original production and other sources don't call these 2 episodes but 1 episodes, why would wikipedia decide for themselves that these are 2 episodes? --Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Generally, how the network broadcast it and how the streaming, etc. sites bundle the episodes are in harmony, so it's not an issue. I'm just saying, in this case – you need to confirm that the network (NBC) originally broadcast this as "one double-length episode". If you can confirm this, then, yes – the episode table needs to be changed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I can atm only confirm that the NBC site and on Netflix it's shown as one episode and the episode count is 12 and there are credits only at the end of the episode. Not sure how it was originally broadcast. --Gonnym (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this came up; in a separate case how would you guys recommend setting up the first season episode table at Salvation (TV series)? Episodes 4 & 5 and 7 & 8 aired in a two hour block with only one set of credits but received different episode titles and writer/director credits. They're both listed together on TFC and on CBS. I had the episodes merged as such here but someone came along and listed them as separate episodes solely on the reason of having different writers and directors. There's no clear split in the episodes again as they were aired and uploaded in one block the split was just my guestimation. The viewing figures were listed as one two-hour block as well once released. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: A slightly more complicated case, as the episodes had different episodes titles, but I can confirm that both of those pairs of episodes are "bundled" together in both CBS All Access and iTunes. IOW, your version was correct, it should not have been undone, and your version should be restored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd actually not revert back to your version. It's very clear from your CBS link that these are two seperate episodes. They are even listed on the page you linked as The Human Strain/Keeping the Faith S1 E4, 5 and for the other one as Seeing Red/From Russia, With Love S1 E7, 8. This is why I said that the "block" was OR. Go with what the production actually says, in this case, it says they are two episodes. --Gonnym (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

This case is complicated. If as TheDoctorWho says they aired with one set of credits, then they should probably be listed as one episode. Two streaming sites are still streaming them together as "one episode", despite the numbering by CBS, which is not nothing. And on iTunes, these episodes are listed with just one number. However, Amazon (Prime) muddies the waters further – the first pair are listed as one episode, but the second pair are split up. This probably merits a Talk page discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh god. Why can't this ever be simple? --Gonnym (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

They were broadcast as two episodes with two sets of credits on NBC. If you watch The Good Place you would know that after the title they show a green chapter screen with the chapter number in white. They also provided the credits as usual. The preliminary Nielsen ratings showed two episodes too for the season three premiere before they just averaged out the hour in the finals. Here's the Showbuzz Daily listing for the preliminary numbers showing two episodes [8] You can find the TVBythenumbers one with a bit of effort(They listed the same way I remember), I personally don't want to dig through their archives. Esuka (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think ratings can be used as a "definitive source" on questions such as these. Ultimately, it's: Were there one set of credits, or two? Now, I don't watch The Good Place, so I can't answer this. But it's really the primary issue in determining how to list episodes in episode tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Two sets of credits as said. I'm not really sure why this has gotten so confusing with the way some websites list the show. But I can only say what I watched. Esuka (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Amazon shows "Everything Is Great!" as a 43-minute episode, so it's one episode. Amaury • 17:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources consistently refer to the series being renewed for 13 episodes, not 12 (I believe there's an episode 14 in the fourth and final season, however), and Futon Critic also consistently lists the premieres as separate episodes. In combo with the included chapter cards (creator intent), this makes them clearly separate, no matter how various streaming services bundle them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, "production episodes" ≠ "broadcast episodes", so the first part of that is neither here nor there. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be careful with simply saying that 2 episodes broadcast as one is automatically two separate entries in an episode table. First, I don't think that MOSTV even addresses this, so I'm not sure where that rule is coming from. If a network/studio decides to merge them, unless there's a reliable source indicating such, you cannot guarantee how it was edited and if a second unit team had some of their stuff put into the first hour (and vice versa). Sometimes, it is as simple as two back to back episodes, but not all the time. Smallville has an episode in season 9, "Absolute Justice" that started as 2 distinct episodes and was completely merged to be one episode, they even retitled the 2 episodes into a single entry. You'd probably need to know a bit more about this show to know if you're just talking about 2 episodes broadcast back to back, or if they were officially merged.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

This is why crediting matters. (Note: I think I'm actually agreeing with Bignole here, if I'm reading the above correctly...) Ultimately, the network (who pays for this stuff) gets to decide what's an "episode" and what's "two episodes". Production ultimately is organized the way it is for accounting purposes as much as anything – a "production episode" may or may not have "real world" meaning. But substituting editors' judgements of what constitutes an "episode" over what a network (and usually streaming services as well) does constitutes all the hallmarks of WP:OR. So, of course, this matters. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a streaming service can decide what an episode is or isn't. If that was the case, Disney+ has decided that the old 1994 Spider-Man animated show had 1 season, with like 64 episodes, as opposed to the 5 seasons it actually had. LOL. It should always come down to what reliable sources say the network (or studio that owns the show) has designated it as. You may or may not know that right away. So, you may have to err on the side of caution and separate it if there isn't reliable sources indicating that it is in fact a single episode now.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How it's broadcast is usually what determines this – one set of credits vs. two sets of credits. The point is, the streaming services generally match how the episodes were broadcast, so are supporting evidence. No one is saying they're the primary evidence here – how the episode(s) is(are) broadcast is. (And, yes, of course, sometimes all of this is a mess – for example, trying to figure out how many seasons iCarly has is a mess thanks the broadcaster itself, the streaming services, and the various sources on the subject...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Updates available for DISH Network

Hello, my name is Caroline. As an employee of DISH, I suggested improvements to the DISH Network infobox. My request is at Talk:Dish_Network#Updates_available_for_infobox. Specifically, the financials and number of employees are outdated, so I have provided the updated figures and sourcing. I'll avoid editing the article directly and will disclose my conflict of interest openly when submitting requests for editors to review.

Thanks!

CK-DISH (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi CK-DISH. For future reference, it often helps to use Template:Request edit when making an edit request on an article's talk page since it will add the page to a queue of other requests waiting to be answered. I've gone ahead and added it for you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly. Thanks! CK-DISH (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What constitutes an "appearance" from an actor/character?

This is in regards to The Walking Dead and the character Enid portrayed by Katelyn Nacon. Her last appearance is in the season 9 episode "The Calm Before", however she briefly appears (a few seconds) via archive footage from that season 9 episode in a season 10 episode and the actress is uncredited. How do we deal with this? Certain editors are adding this an appearance, as as guest star in the season and episode articles and is using that episode as her "last appeance" in her character article. I'm a believer that it would have to be new footage with the actor credited for it to count. Do we have any guidelines on this? Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's uncredited, it can/should only be mentioned if there are reliable secondary sources that mention it. Without this, it actually shouldn't even be mentioned at all. But even if sourced it almost certainly shouldn't be included as a "guest star" appearance – this should be mentioned in something like the 'Production'/'Casting' or equivalent section, and shouldn't really count as her "last appearance", as it's archival footage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Although there are cases where someone shown only in archival footage is credited as a guest guest, such the John character on A Million Little Things. In those cases, we can list them as a guest star. Amaury • 18:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO, one of two things: 1. they are credited 2. the appearance is discussed in RS (e.g. I've been working on the The House of Flowers page and even though Virginia is in several scenes in the first episode of season 2 - some archival and some new - she is neither credited nor is the appearance mentioned, so she's not listed as appearing season 2 because it can't actually be sourced). Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, being credited for an archival footage appearance is different – I noticed that happening more than once on The Tribe (though there were plenty of other example of uncredited "archival footage" appearances on that show as well...). If someone is credited, even for an "archival footage" appearance, then that would count as a "guest" stint, because it's credited. But the original question here was about uncredited appearances like this – those definitely do not count as "guest" appearances, and they shouldn't even be mentioned at all, unless reliable secondary sources make note of the appearance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Haunting of Hill House

Main articles: The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) and The Haunting of Bly Manor

Thoughts on the situation between the above articles? The Haunting of Hill House was set to be a limited single-season series, but was renewed with The Haunting of Bly Manor, but it's not clear whether Bly Manor is a second season (and will be under some sort of umbrella title like American Horror Story), or a completely separate (sequel?) series, as the Bly Manor article currently portrays. Thoughts on how this should be handled? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Should be listed as separate series. Although it's not 100% confirmed (and I'm quite sure it will be soon), Bly Manor will be a completely different series and for multiple reasons:

• The logo is not in an umbrella-title-style
• Mike Flanagan spoke in an interview that there will be "no dramatic link between The Haunting of Bly Manor and its predecessor." I have cited this in The Haunting of Bly Manor
• It only makes sense that Bly Manor is separate as there are completely new characters, and new story, and also since some of the actors/actresses from Hill House are returning to portray characters in Bly Manor which are completely different to Hill House, unless there is a significant link between two characters, which is unlikely due to Flanagan's previous statement.

If you'd like to discuss this further I'd be happy to. But at the moment I say they're two different series. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back any of this up? As far as I can tell, the Hill House sources specifically state that its a new season, not a separate series. If you want an example of seasons that are completely separate from each other, see American Horror Story. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Some of it is on The Haunting of Bly Manor, and from Mike Flanagan’s Twitter. As mentioned before, he’s discussed that there’s little to no links between the two series. There’s a lot of links floating around on the internet which we can find. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no Twitter sources in the article. There can exist no link between them but still be separate seasons of the same series. I'm looking for a source that explicitly states that they are separate series. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn’t the fact that the official logo is different from its predecessor and not under any umbrella title or subheading further strengthen my point? Then again I’ll repeat myself, it’s not 100% confirmed but it is most likely to be separate. Until then I say we keep it how it is now. Kaito Nakamura (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Not at all; that is textbook WP:OR. If it's not confirmed, then it needs to be listed as it is by reliable sources, and that's as a separate season. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest that anyone responding to this topic should first take a look at the discussions in the article's Talk page, hang in there, and see all that transpired. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  Best to link to the talk page in general, as all four current discussions are relevant, including the first and last discussions. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 1). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This is YA discussion that could really use perspectives from WP:TV regulars. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Show

The Daily Show, 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) 03:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I.#Requested move 3 December 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I.#Requested move 3 December 2019. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Recurring character = 4 or 5 episodes?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Recurring character = 4 or 5 episodes?. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Are Lists of cast members still a thing?

I invite editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Are Lists of cast members still a thing? – sgeureka ^t•c 14:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Television since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Different broadcast episodes - which to use

Hi, me and Bradford have a question over at Bolívar (TV series). The show is Colombian, but was first released worldwide except Colombia on Netflix, with 60 episodes. It was, though, first released in Colombia on the TV channel Caracol. In the Caracol broadcast, the episodes are cut differently and currently number 69, with the show ongoing. The question is which episode listing should be the main focus on Wikipedia. Netflix was technically the first broadcast and is the most widely available format, but obviously the show is Colombian and the Caracol version is the first and only broadcast there. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Colombian-released format in the episode table, and then note any other release (i.e. Netflix) in prose in a Release section. This is per MOS:TVINTL. You can (and then probably should) also use notes as seen in examples like the airdate at SpongeBob SquarePants (season 12)#ep242b. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We go with the first broadcast in the country of origin/intended market. So if Colombia is the primary intended market, we go with that. Amaury • 21:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Money Heist had a similar situation, and we went with the original broadcast everywhere per above (incl. the episode list), and summarized the whole situation in detail at Money Heist#Release. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on reliability of Showbiz Cheat Sheet and We Got This Covered

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of Showbiz Cheat Sheet (cheatsheet.com) and We Got This Covered (wegotthiscovered.com). If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Omigosh, are Cheatsheet.com and WeGotThisCovered.com reliable?. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces

All TV-show specific WikiProjects I could find are listed below:

WP	Created	Active	Other parent WikiProjects	Turn into taskforce ?
WP:WikiProject 24	May 18, 2006	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/24 task force
WP:WikiProject The 4400	28 August 2006‎	marked {{defunct}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The 4400 task force
WP:WikiProject The Apprentice UK	27 January 2007‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Apprentice UK task force
WP:WikiProject Awake	28 July 2012‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Awake task force
WP:WikiProject Babylon 5	18 August 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Babylon 5 task force
WP:WikiProject Battlestar Galactica	28 October 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Battlestar Galactica task force
WP:WikiProject The Bill	21 November 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Bill task force
WP:WikiProject Buffyverse	26 April 2005‎	apparently inactive since 2011	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Buffyverse task force
WP:WikiProject Big Brother	30 April 2006‎	Yes		Opposed
WP:WikiProject Coronation Street	12 January 2008‎	Yes	Soap Operas, British television	Opposed
WP:WikiProject CSI franchise	10 May 2007‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/CSI task force
WP:WikiProject Degrassi	30 July 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Degrassi task force
WP:WikiProject Doctor Who	6 April 2005‎	Yes	Science Fiction, British television	Opposed
WP:WikiProject EastEnders	4 November 2005‎	Yes	Soap Operas, British television	Opposed
WP:WikiProject Emmerdale	21 September 2006‎	apparently inactive since 2015	Soap Operas, British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Emmerdale task force
WP:WikiProject Fawlty Towers	11 July 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Fawlty Towers task force
WP:WikiProject Firefly	30 June 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Firefly task force
WP:WikiProject Futurama	20 June 2006‎	marked {{semi-active}}, apparently inactive since 2015	Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/Futurama task force
WP:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy	22 February 2009‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Grey's Anatomy task force
WP:WikiProject G.I. Joe	19 September 2007‎	marked {{semi-active}}	Toys, Animation, Comics, Film	?
WP:WikiProject Hollyoaks	11 October 2009‎	apparently inactive since 2015	Soap Operas, British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Hollyoaks task force
WP:WikiProject Jackass	1 March 2007‎	marked {{defunct}}	Film	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Jackass task force
WP:WikiProject Monty Python	26 July 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television, Film	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Monty Python task force
WP:WikiProject Red Dwarf	13 November 2006‎	apparently inactive since 2008	Science Fiction, British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Red Dwarf task force
WP:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race	15 February 2019‎	Yes		Not done WP:WikiProject Television/RuPaul's Drag Race task force
WP:WikiProject The Simpsons	4 September 2005‎	Yes	Animation	Opposed
WP:WikiProject South Park	3 October 2006‎	marked {{semi-active}}, apparently inactive since 2015	Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/South Park task force
WP:WikiProject Spooks	19 September 2006‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/Spooks task force
WP:WikiProject Star Trek	25 October 2004‎	Yes	Science Fiction, Film	Opposed
WP:WikiProject Star Wars	11 February 2006‎	Yes	Science Fiction, Film	Opposed
WP:WikiProject Thomas	31 May 2006‎	marked {{semiactive}}, apparently inactive since 2016	British television, Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force
WP:WikiProject TUGS	11 March 2007‎	marked {{inactive}}	British television, Animation	Moved to WP:WikiProject Animation/TUGS task force
WP:WikiProject The Twilight Zone	11 March 2007‎	apparently inactive since 2016	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Twilight Zone task force
WP:WikiProject The Wire	18 March 2008‎	marked {{inactive}}		Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The Wire task force
WP:WikiProject The X-Files	6 April 2008‎	apparently inactive since 2016	Science Fiction	Moved to WP:WikiProject Television/The X-Files task force

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces#Show-specific projects and task forces, We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become task forces of WP:TV. This still allows for greater focus on that show/ topic, but without having to start a whole new project from scratch. Many existing show-specific WikiProjects became projects before the concept of task forces was widely known, and many of them will become task forces in the future. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for more info, or ask for help on WT:TV. (emphasis mine).

I'd like to lead with a good example and finally perform the last step and batch-turn all inactive WikiProjects from the above list into taskforces. All affected WikiProjects will receive a talkpage message within the next few hours that links to this discussion.

• If someone thinks this move is a bad idea in general, then say so in the Discussion section below.
• If someone feels a few selected WikiProjects should not become taskforces, please mark that in the above table with {{no X|Opposed}}, so that they can get a separate discussion at a later time.
• If someone feels that WP:WPTV is not the right parent WikiProject for a certain taskforce, mark it in the above table or say so in the Discussion section below.

– sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support as initiator. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race needs to be added to your list. It was created on February 15, 2019 but is currently active, discussing and improving all related articles. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Added, and I also added Wikipedia:WikiProject Thomas. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support – frankly, there shouldn't be TV show-specific WP's in the first place: they should all be Task Forces only. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the same should be made true for TV channel-specific WP's like WP:NICK and probably WP:DISNEY. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we should take a look at all of them except the ones that fall under WP:ANIME's purview as they have already turned them into task forces of that project except for WP:Pokémon test and WP:TRANSFORMERS. I'm on the side that any current active decedent WikiProjects should retain their WikiProject status. Out of the 8 active descendant WikiProjects, 6 of them were created prior to the creation of task forces (July 1, 2007). In fairness to the 8 active WPs we should grandfather them as long as they continue to be active. As time goes on if they become inactive we can evaluate them on an individual case by case basis. This is how WP:VG handled all their decedent WikiProjects and it has worked out very well for them. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support as per sgeureka, this is similar to what other parent WikiProjects have done which is convert any inactive/defunct decedent WPs into task forces while grandfathering in the few remaining active ones into their current status. It also wouldn't be a bad idea adopting what WP:VG has done with WP:INDIE which is archive the talk pages of some of these long-time inactive/defunct projects to WT:TV. This way if someone is looking for help with Hollyoaks related-articles for example they are not taken to a dormant task force talk page instead they will be redirected here so we can help them. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment After looking those shared with other WikiProjects I propose the following:
  • Those that are also shared with WP:SCIFI, WP:SOAPS and British Television should become task forces under WP:TV except if they are shared with WP:ANIMATION. For WP:SCIFI and WP:BTV this follows current precedent.
  • Jackass and Monty Python (shared with WP:FILM) should be task forces under WP:TV since those franchises started off as TV series and the films came after the TV series.
  • For those that are shared with WP:ANIMATION projects like WP:FUTURAMA, WP:GIJOE, WP:SOUTHPARK and WP:TUGS should become work groups under WP:ANIMATION similar to Spongebob, Loony Tunes and Family Guy in order to keep everything consistent. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 14:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable to me as it has precedents. I'll wait a few days for more replies before changing the proposed taskforce names in the table. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving all to workgroups (since the delete button is somehow blasphemy). Lesser support for moving them under any other WP. A TV series is a TV series, regardless of it's format, animation or otherwise. But again, lesser support is not opposing. Just get rid of the WikiProject aspect. Less clutter is better. --Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Consider whether you even want them as task forces, especially if they are inactive. WP:VG/IPC#Cleanup log logs a number of pages which were successfully redirected, archived, and deleted. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving inactive projects per proposal. Active projects should remain as-are. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose for media franchise wikiprojects South Park and Babylon 5 have scope that differs from WP:TV. Just because it falls within WP:TV's scope doesn't mean that it should be part of WP:TV's taskforce right away.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Blue Pumpkin Pie: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Babylon 5 (franchise) doesn't look much different than the Stargate franchise, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Stargate task force works just fine (and it's dead, just like Babylon 5, so it's not like anyone will use the taskforce anyway). For South Park (franchise) (and I am no expert), I'd argue even more that it's first and foremost a TV show, everything else second, so if not even the (still running) TV show can mobilize editors to join forces, then the franchise behind will do so even less. But yeah (not trying to be snarky), inactive media franchise wikiprojects should be considered more carefully here. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with sgeureka's rationale here and just like I mentioned above we have established precedents to look at. In my original rational all western animation based WikiProjects like WP:SOUTHPARK and WP:THOMAS would become task forces under WP:ANIMATION to match the task forces for Spongebob, Loony Tunes and Family Guy. WP:B5 and WP:BSG would become task forces under WP:TV because their primary works are TV shows. Any other major parent WikiProjects like WP:FILM would continue supporting these task forces via their respective scope and media. WP:SCIFI doesn't have any task forces under its project space instead it supports different existing task forces under WP:ANIME (aka Gundam), WP:NOVELS and WP:TV. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 12:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support moving inactive projects per proposal. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support for inactive projects ONLY, active projects should remain as they are unless they ever become inactive for an extended period of time. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment on GI Joe. IMHO this one is harder to fit into one specific task force. It has roots to comics, animation, and toys too. And TV series isn't the dominant media.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving forward

There is consensus for turning most of the listed WikiProjects into taskforces. I'll carefully re-read the discussion above, summarize here what I'll do and perform the move over the weekend. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC) whenever I have time in the near future to do this properly. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There is consensus for:

• Only the inactive WikiProjects should be turned into taskforces for now.
• Per precedents, inactive WikiProjects that have WP:ANIMATION as a parent WikiProject, should become a taskforce of ANIMATION rather than TV. This includes WP:FUTURAMA, WP:SOUTHPARK, WP:TUGS and WP:THOMAS.
• Per precedents, media franchises with strong TV-based origins should become taskforces under WP:WPTV or WP:ANIMATION, respectively. This includes WP:B5, WP:BSG, and (to a lesser regard) Jackass and Monty Python, but not WP:GIJOE.

Ideas for the future and things to keep in mind:

• TV channel-specific WikiProjects like WP:NICK and probably WP:DISNEY should be turned into taskforces as well.
• The new (still inactive) taskforce pages should somehow make it obvious that editors can get help at the parent WikiProject WP:WPTV/WP:ANIMATION.
  • (Solution: Adding the template {{WikiProject status|inactive|type=TV show|parent=Television|taskforce=yes}} will take care of this. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC))
• Some of the inactive WikiProjects (i.e. future inactive taskforces) would be better off deleted.

– sgeureka ^t•c 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree that only inactive WP's should be turned into taskforces. But agree that both WP:NICK, and probably WP:DISNEY, should be turned into taskforces as well – WP:NICK is mostly inactive; not sure about WP:DISNEY – that one will need to be checked first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we merge the Wikiproject templates. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I fixed a broken transclusion, but otherwise I'd say there are more productive things to do than moving/merging WikiProject templates. If you're talking about modifying {{WikiProject Television}}, then I'd say it desperately needs a |taskforce= parameter rather than spelling out each possible taskforce. I don't fully know yet. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Done All inactive WikiProjects are turned into taskforces now. I'll start cleaning up Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Navigation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces soon. What might need more input/action from others:

• I left a note at WP:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race to invite them to convert into a taskforce voluntarily, but the result is not of my concern.
• I noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Avatar: The Last Airbender task force is part of WPTV rather than ANIMATION. If this is wrong, I think it's best to move it within this cleanup process.
• User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA named the ANIMATION WikiProjects "taskforce" rather than "work group". Is that a problem?

– sgeureka ^t•c 22:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sgeureka: So after these have been converted to task forces, what about the banner templates? {{WikiProject The Apprentice UK}} does not tag the articles as TV WP-related. --Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made sure that all new taskforces got a {{WikiProject status|inactive|type=TV show|parent=Television|taskforce=yes}} tag. So when someone clicks on e.g. the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Apprentice UK link in the banner, they immediately get greated by a "... you may still want to consider joining it or its parent project WP:WikiProject Television" message. Sure, someone could rewrite the banners to link to here immediately, but it's not worth it for me to do so. Most of the articles of these old wikiprojects are often already banner-tagged with WP:TV as well, and the minor fictional-element focused articles will likely get merged or deleted as WP:FANCRUFT in the foreseeable future. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Have no idea of the amount of articles, but I just came from an AfD for reality list of cast article and they weren't tagged with the TV one, which is why I noticed it. I'm not sure if redirecting them was the correct way. Instead I think it would have been better to use {{WikiProject Television}} and add the task force into it like all other tasks forces it supports. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, someone with template editing experience can surely change the template code of {{WikiProject Television}} per your suggestion. Despite my programming background IRL, I always freak out when I see raw template code. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

There is at least one bot that can move/fix/handle WikiProject banner removal/transfer cases. Leave a request at bot requests. --Izno (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sgeureka: did you leave out Wikipedia:WikiProject NCIS for a specific reason? --Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't listed in the three places I looked (pre-cleanup 1; 2; 3), so I simply missed it. It's been in-active since 2016, so I recommend to either boldly turn it into a taskforce, or open another move proposal including the above mentioned inactive DISNEY and NICK. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Cast sections - spaced dashes?

I keep seeing edits like this, where an anonymous editor keeps adding dashes to cast/character descriptions. I've seen these in a number of articles, but aren't they typically double-spaced, like "SpongeBob SquarePants – A happy yellow sponge"? Is there a preference for these? I don't see anything in the MOS, specifically. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

One, the edit you are linking to above is certainly revertable, as there is nothing that requires the use of ndashes in 'Cast/character' sections, and there was nothing wrong with the previous format for that Cast listing. Second, yes, you are correct, it's supposed to be "SpongeBob SquarePants – A happy yellow sponge" (in fact, technically, I think it's actually supposed to be "SpongeBob SquarePants{{nbsp}}– A happy yellow sponge". So that edit was incorrect on this front as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the style there is something common in Indian writing, where colon might be more appropriate. Our own MOS proscribes the dash spacing in question, but I think also we should prefer the colon in that case. --Izno (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC about TV and radio station style variances

Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in an RfC at Talk:WNGH-TV#RfC about TV and radio station style variances. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You

I recently created {{You (novel series)}} for the novel series and television adaptation, but I'm not sure on the disambiguator "novel series", as there's more articles for the television series than the novels, and {{You}} already exists. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 21 (talk • contribs)

I dislike the brackets. How about {{You franchise}}? – sgeureka ^t•c 07:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments requested at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should a "dialogue" parameter be added to the template?

Hi there, your input would be appreciated at Template talk:Infobox television#RfC: Should a "dialogue" parameter be added to the template? Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Pinging this topic. I made a boneheaded decision to open an RfC before Christmas. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Robot series finale titles

First of all, happy holidays everyone! On to the issue at hand, I would like to get a wider range of opinions regarding the series finale titles of Mr. Robot (see here for the initial discussion. A recap:

• Prior to episodes broadcast, the final two episodes were known as "Series Finale Part 1" and "Series Finale Part 2" (likely placeholder titles), sourced via NBCUniversal, the shows's distributor and this is how the titles were known until after the episodes were broadcast when the real titles were revealed, to be "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" via The Hollywood Reporter, "titled 'whoami' and 'Hello, Elliot,' respectively, according to USA reps".
• The "Series Finale" titles still appear on the USA Network website, such as here Archived 2019-12-31 at the Wayback Machine, but the titles have been updated in other pages such as the individual episode pages here and here, and also appear as such on the sidebar on right under "Season 4 recaps".
• A multitude of other reliable sources use the updated titles as well, including digital versions of the episodes via NBC, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and online guides such as Zap2it and Gracenote.
• It's clear that these are the updated, finalized titles. NBCUniversal uploaded press photos for the finale the day after it aired, and used the title "Hello, Elliot", as seen here, scroll down to photos. The title "Hello, Elliot" (although, misspelled with an extra "l" was submitted to the WGA database in October.
• There is generally a consensus on the talk page to just use the finalized titles, but one editor is insisting on keeping the original "Series Finale" titles too. Personally, I'd like to just scrub those titles from the actual episode lists, and maybe just leave a note, like "the episodes were simply known as such before broadcast". For comparison, the season 8 titles of Game of Thrones were not known until after the episodes were broadcast, but obviously we're not listing "Unknown" or "TBA" as the episode titles.

Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Should use title post initial broadcast, either evident from the title card or reviews etc. Same case happened in Watchmen where one so was officially listed as "a god walks into a bar" but title card and post showing interviews showed it as "a god walks into abar". Now if there is change of title well after first broadcast (e.g. From some negative feedback on the title), the original tifle.should be used with footnotes of the change. --Masem (t)

Right now the article lists both titles, which is verifiable and reflects the change USA made to the titles prior to broadcast and the post-broadcast use of what are presumed to be the original titles. Editors are trying to alter this based on supposition that "Series Finale, Part 1/2" were "placeholders" or designed to avoid spoilers (not that there are any particular spoilers in either title), sans any sourcing to support either, which is entirely WP:OR. I was just commenting on the talk page that I do not understand this burning need to list one or the other title for each episode rather than listing both, which fully reflects what was actually used. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There was no change prior to broadcast, the change was after broadcast. NBCUniversal's episode page and USA's Network schedule always listed "Series Finale" as the titles, same as other online TV guides (Zap2it, Gracenote; which have since updated to use "whoami/Hello, Elliot"). It wasn't until after the episodes were broadcast that the actual titles became known via the half-dozen sources I've supplied on the talk pages. The Hollywood Reporter source should honestly be enough, as it literally states: "...the two-part episode (titled "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot," respectively, according to USA reps)". At the very least, their placement should be switched around, so "whoami/Hello, Elliot" appear in the Tittle parameter while the former appears as an AltTitle. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There are spoilers in both titles. "whoami" alludes to something major about the main character that is revealed in that episode. "Hello, Elliot" is also related to that same reveal and is the last line of dialogue in the series.

It's hard to find a more clear cut example of placeholder titles. I'd be curious what Drmargi would considerable an acceptable source for that. This is tantamount to calling some episode "Episode 401" in an article because some web page had that listed for a TV episode before the official title was released. --SubSeven (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" are the official titles; Drovethrughosts has put forward solid points. The original placeholder titles can be noted in an external note that that was how they were listed pre-broadcast, but "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot" should be the only actual titles listed for those episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I support using the titles "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot", for the reasons given already and for what I've said on the talkpage. Esuka (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

With four editors agreeing on the titles, I'd say that there's a clear consensus on the topic. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually six; me, you (Alex 21), Esuka, Masem, SubSeven, and Gonnym (who posted on the Mr. Robot talk page) all seem to be in favor. Unless I'm misinterpretating some of their comments. On a similar note, I'd like point out a new issue, the article for the series finale: Mr. Robot finale and what we should be naming it; see the talk page. Thanks! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Please see Talk:Eps3.4 runtime-error.r00#Title and Talk:Mr. Robot finale#Title for discussion on how the episode articles should be named. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the latter needs discussion; it does not conform to MOS:TV at all. Nor does Runtime Error (Mr. Robot). -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Paid editors

Posting a notice that we have two new users User:SonuMohkh and User:MadhuShree1717 working for Zee Entertainment Enterprises. They've created around 40 new articles in draft-space. --Gonnym (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

List of episodes param in "Infobox television" template

Hullo,

At Talk:The Alienist (TV series)#List of episodes param in {{Infobox television}}, I queried IJBall about his recent edit to that article removing "#Episodes" as the value of the |list_episodes= parameter in the {{Infobox television}} template. He feels the template documentation requires (encourages?) this because it says If a Wikipedia "List of" article exists for the show's episodes, put its name here. and that the intent behind this sentence is that if there isn't a list of episodes actual article, the parameter should be left blank.

I've seen this use of "#Episodes" throughout the project in TV program articles and while I understand his interpretation of the documentation, I disagree that the documentation requires or even encourages this type of removal. I feel like having a link to the list of episodes (wherever they may be, either in the program article or in a separate one) in the infobox is useful. I wanted to hear what others thought because if the removal interpretation has wide consensus, that'll require changes to a pretty substantial number of articles (if we want to be consistent). I would prefer we simply don't take a strict literalist approach to the template's documentation by assuming "if" in the sentence means "iff", i.e. "if and only if", or that we just change the documentation to more clearly allow for some flexibility. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

FTR, I'm not the only editor who feels this way – I've certainly seen other editors remove "#Episodes" from that parameter. As i said in the linked Talk discussion, especially for short articles, doing that is pointless, and even for longer articles, doing so is of limited value – that's what the article's TOC is for. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Didn't say you were the only one; posted here to take the temperature of the room, as it were. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am against this sort of removal, and support the inclusion of the "#Episodes" anchor in the infobox, as a clear common practice of WP:TV. The template documentation says nothing of the sort that if a LoE article does not exist, then we cannot include any sort of link; that sort of apparent "clear implication" is a user's thought and nothing more. A list of episodes is a list of episodes, regardless of where it's located, and including a link (to another article or an anchor is regardless) allows the reader to quickly access such a list. Articles also have a different order of where everything is located within them, not every article conforms to the same layout, so the episodes section does not necessarily exist in the same location across every article. That's therefore the same for the ToC, so having a link to the episodes in the same location in every article is also beneficial for the readers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've included the "#Episodes" link in numerous Infoboxes that don't have their own LOE articles. MOS:SECTIONLINKS even says If an existing article has a section specifically about the topic, you can redirect or link directly to it, by following the article name with a number sign and follows with text about linking to sections within the same article. With that, I don't really have a problem with these type of links. TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 06:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with IJBall. It is pointless and does not need to be placed there until an episode list article exists. And not everything has to be mentioned in template documentation, guidelines, or policies. There is a little thing called common sense. Amaury • 07:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Common sense" varies between person to person (as is clear by this discussion existing), and when it doesn't, that's where documentation, guidelines and policies clear things up. I'm sure a lot of things in MOS:TV are common sense, and yet they exist to pave a distinct, clear way for articles. Every policy that exists are all definitely common sense, and yet they all exist. Where there are differing opinions, that is where consensus and clear statements in documenation come in. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

• I support the inclusion of "#Episodes" links. As an en.wiki reader (rather than editor), I don't care if the episode list is a stand-alone list or still part of the series main article. I just briefly look at the info box, and if there is no link to the episode list, I just assume there is no ep list at all. Having to look over at the TOC or scroll down to see if there is an ep list after all, is a disservice. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, doing this for short TV series articles is utterly pointless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line for "short"? These are articles from Category:Spanish drama television series without #Episode links in the infobox where I have to mouse-wheel-scroll 2+ times to even see if there actually is an episode table: Locked Up (TV series) (doesn't even say "Episodes" in the TOC), El Internado, Isabel (TV series), El Príncipe (TV series), The Time in Between (TV series), Carlos, rey emperador; also notice how there is no standard naming for the Episode section in the TOC, so I'd have to parse the full TOC to find episodes. And here with an #Episode link: Física o Química, Velvet (TV series), ahhhh, so nice. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT – Locked Up (TV series) should have a section 'Episodes', with 'Series overview' as a subheading under that. And none of that changes my point – I will oppose any change to the template wording that blanket "allows" (or "requires") use of "#Episodes" in that parameter, because there are plenty of articles where doing that is inappropriate or unnecessary. Personally, I think the current wording is fine – people can discuss at the longer TV articles where doing "#Episodes" is appropriate. There's no need to make allowances for this in the template wording. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to add that where I've had to interact with episode lists most is Spanish shows - but of course, these can be fixed, and with such a simple solution there is no need to create a new (apparently controversial) instruction. Kingsif (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! — Bilorv (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger/deletion of Jan Pol (veterinarian) and The Incredible Dr. Pol

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Jan Pol (veterinarian) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Needs more sources. Notability, independent of the show? The Incredible Dr. Pol Impending AFD or Merger. Merger discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out

Incase you didn't know, there's a very long discussion going on at Talk:The Mandalorian you may enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion: List of Late Night with Conan O'Brien sketches

Discussion here. Opinions welcome. Popcornduff (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Steven Universe Future#Episode table

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Steven Universe Future#Episode table. This discussion regards whether an episode table should exist on the season article and then transcluded to the List of Episodes article, or should only exist on the List of Episodes article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Episode titles

On Doctor Who (series 12), there's an ongoing battle on whether the first episode of the season should be written in the episode table as "Spyfall, Part 1" (as according to official BBC episode guide), or "Spyfall, Part One" (as according to the title card of the episode). I did change it to "Spyfall, Part One" at one point due the the reason in brackets, but this was because I misinterpreted Alex 21's comments, which were along the lines of "WP:TV has always deferred to the official episode listings by the broadcaster". While I'm not losing sleep over whether it's written as a number or a word, I wanted to ask other editors a) are Alex's comments correct? b) is there a guideline on what to do if title cards and listings differ? and c) should there be a guideline? just to make sure these issues aren't based on what one editor thinks they know (Alex I think is the only editor who's reverted changes to "Part 1"). Thank you --TedEdwards 00:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

If we have a title card, that's what we should go by, per WP:PRIMARY. It's similar in vein to names as per credits. Amaury • 00:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Always watching me, Amaury.

Per the very definition of Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. per WP:PSTS; that is, secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources, so if a proper secondary source is available (i.e. the official BBC episode guide), then it should always be preferred over the primary sources (i.e. the episode).

The case is identical to A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series), in how the official listings and title card show different titles. Consensus was clear to title them how official titles were listed by Netflix, rather than the title cards. Can someone cite a counterpoint example? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Digressing.

Always acting like guidelines and policies are absolute, Alex. Like many others, I watch this project page. Someone posted to it, I checked out the contents of their posts, and replied. It's that simple. Amaury • 01:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC) We try to stick to guidelines as much as possible, hence their existance, and policies absolutely are absolute. Now, please, try not to digress from the discussion at hand. -- /Alex/21 01:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Alex, policies aren't absolute, per WP:IAR. Also see WP:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays. But also I did not start a discussion to reignite old feuds, so... --TedEdwards 01:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Again, please don't digress from the topic at hand. We're here to discuss the Series 12 titles; we can discuss this at another time, if you wish. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 01:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Coming from the person who started this. I guess this is digressing as well. Oops. My bad. Oh, wait, I don't care. Amaury • 01:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Amaury – the primary source (i.e. the title card from the episode) is the one that should be used in this case. It's equivalent to the title of a book. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Despite that Wikipedia bases itself off of secondary sources when available over primary sources? Can someone please cite a counterpoint existing example? -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't understand the use/intent of primary vs. secondary sources – we use secondary sources to establish notability. But primary sources are perfectly appropriate for basic information about something. This case is an example of the latter. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

They're needed to to establish notability, yes, but that is far from their only purpose. As already stated in a quote from PSTS, content should be based around secondary sources, and we should only be using primary sources to a lesser extent. That is, when both are available, the secondary source should be preferred over a primary source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, guidelines and policies are not absolute. You aren't going to get anywhere with that flawed thinking. By your flawed logic, if the on-screen credits list a guest star as "John Smith as Mr. Sherman," but a secondary source lists the credit as "John Smith as Ronald A. Sherman," we should go with the latter. Except we shouldn't, because that's wrong. Mr. Sherman would be the appropriate, out-of-universe, information. His full name could be mentioned in prose somewhere else, but the listed name should be "Mr. Sherman." Amaury • 04:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

For your example, yes and no. Depends on the situation. Common name would apply, so if he was regular referred to as Ronald in the series, then that is how he would be listed. Characters are almost always listed by their common names. An example: Jodie Whittaker is credited as "The Doctor" the episodes of Doctor Who that she has appeared in, but is listed in all episode articles as the "Thirteenth Doctor", as "The Doctor" is ambiguous as to which incarnation s/he is. Same with all those that came before her. I've now provided two separate examples for this scenario. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Except your examples are flawed, because we go by names per credits for a reason. The common name is a fallback if the credits don't have the character name and there's no secondary sourcing supporting a name. But I wouldn't expect you to understand it, since everything you say is wrong. Amaury • 04:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Except that I've presented a consensus-firm example that proves otherwise, and that has existed so for the past decade and a half or so; all of the classic-era Doctors were also credited as "Doctor Who", but they have never been listed on Wikipedia as such - same consensus. That, and the ASOUE example, where a consensus was also created through discussion to use the Netflix-listed titles over the titlecards. I'm still not seeing, as I've requested thrice now, a counterexample.

As for the latter part of your comment, if you could leave your personal issues with me at the login page and proceed in a civil manner, everyone here would greatly appreciate that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21, I think you're taking a literally-minded interpretation of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:COMMONNAME. Using common sense, the title card is what its officially (actually) called, whereas episode guides will just list the episodes however they want regardless of how they're officially (actually) titled. To take such a literally-minded interpretation of policies and guidelines is to apply them to situations they don't adequately fit. Instead, ask yourself whether it actually makes sense to go by what someone else says about the titling of the episodes instead of the creators of the show. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Except that the episode guide provided is from the BBC, the official broadcaster of the programme. The title card title is simply how the designer decided to list the title when creating the title card. (Also, that's twice IAR has been invoked in this discussion, the ultimate fallback policy in lack of any other...) As for the latter question of your comment, I refer back to the former part of mine. Chris Chibnall doesn't create the title cards, but he does provide them to the BBC. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You have at least three people saying you're wrong, yet you keep insisting on things being your way. "The Doctor" would be the correct listing, as that is how it is in the credits. I highly suggest you knock it off with your ridiculous accusations, or you will find yourself in trouble. Honesty, Wikipedia would be better off without you. Amaury • 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and there's also editors agreeing with me, so it's not as clear-cut as you'd like to think, nor is it as clear-cut with the two consensus-backed examples you've already been given. Again, please leave the uncivil replies at the login page; if you do not wish to discuss this with me, then don't. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

From my count, I only see two people agreeing with you. You're letting it go to your head, because you want to be right. I could really be digging into you right now, but lucky for you, I'm currently "feeling nice." Amaury • 21:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussions are not votes. Consensus is key and primary. Please do stick to the topic at hand; if you have a personal issue with me, you can discuss it on my talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I will not discuss anything with you on your talk page. We all know how that would go. And it's ugly, anyway. Consider this my final reply to you here, as I will not continue to reply to your rubbish. Amaury • 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I might not agree with Alex, but Amaury, you're also not helping anything by talking down to Alex instead of explaining your position. If you wish to have your comments considered by those you disagree with, then you need to stop with the battleground comments. Both sides of this discussion aren't going to hash anything out as long as you continue to treat this like a WP:BATTLEFIELD. Also you're treating this like a WP:VOTE by saying "X amount of editors says this and X amount of editors says this". I suggest you talk only about content and stop talking about other editors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Also to give a counterexample, List of Power Rangers Turbo episodes lists the two parts of "Passing the Torch" as "Passing the Torch, Part I" and "Passing the Torch, Part II", the same way they're titled in the show see here. While that page is sourced to TV.com and IMDB, TV Guide (while not a broadcaster is still a WP:SECONDARY that doesn't use the official names) lists these as "Passing the Torch, Part 1" and "Passing the Torch, Part 2", but we're not using TV Guide as a source when it comes to the Power Rangers episodes lists. Since WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS seem to have been invoked here, I wanted to give an example of one subject area that uses the primary source rather than a secondary source to list the episode titles/indicators/whichever. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm "talking down" to Alex because of his mentality and previous experiences with him. And previous experiences show that, while not necessarily doing that here, he has a history of stalking and harassment; not only of myself, but IJBall as well. But I won't get into that here. Power Rangers is another series that shows its episode titles (unlike most series, which don't), so if the on-screen text shows "Passing the Torch, Part I" and "Passing the Torch, Part II" for the two episodes each, as you said above, then yeah, that's what we go by. Amaury • 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Your accusations are irrelevant to the discussion at hand; again, if you have an issue with me, take it to my talk page, not a public venue with unrelated editors. Clearly, exampels exist in both situations, so a clear consensus needs to be gained here, instead of taking one article over an equally important one. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:NUMERAL might be of interest. (So also might MOS:CONFORMTITLE.) --Izno (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Currently have no opinion in this matter, but just adding the specific mention at MOS:NUMERAL: Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered. --Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Spyfall is obviously the title. the part numbers are just there as indicators and not part of the title. Go with Spyfall (Part 1) and Spyfall (Part 2) - X201 (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

X201, That's a bit more of a compelling argument. But that still goes back to the fact that intertitles and episode guides are going to list the indicators differently. And that's why everyone's debating which way to list the indicators. I for one think this is a case where WP:IAR should be applied. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alex is correct that the case is identical to A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series) and should be dealt with as such. — Bilorv (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Alex is not correct, he's just insistent that things be his way, as always. The part numbers are not just indicators and are also part of the titles. Amaury • 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that they are part of the titles. The question is simply what part numbers and how they are displayed where. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)