Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes

Sharing a list of recently created entries for Drag Race, season 7 episodes:

• Born Naked (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Glamazonian Airways
• ShakesQueer
• The DESPY Awards
• Conjoined Queens
• Divine Inspiration (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Prancing Queens
• Hello, Kitty Girls!
• And the Rest Is Drag

Not sure if any qualify for appearance in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, but article improvements are welcome! Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, most of these don't pass WP:NTVEP and should be redirected back to the season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd take offense to indiscriminate redirecting, but welcome comments on individual article talk pages if there are notability concerns. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Favre, these articles need to be redirected. Outside of the lead, the last article consists of two two-line paragraphs. There is no reason why those four sentences cannot exist at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, then please state your concerns on a case-by-case basis, on respective pages, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does it have to be case-by-case? You created this discussion that would summarize all discussion concerning these episodes. None of the above episodes meet notability standards. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe I'm creating valid stubs, and ask editors to assume good faith instead of trying to squash these immediately. I don't understand the rush, or the resistance to evaluating on a case by case basis. This is not an unreasonable ask. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There's certainly no rush, which is why we have the draftspace to incubate stub articles such as these. No article in the above seems any different to the other, they all merit the same action, hence the centralized discussion. Editors telling you that they're too short isn't not acting in good faith, it's informing you of Wikipedia's article sizing guidelines. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't take issue with editors telling me the stubs are short. Stubs are indeed short by definition. I disagree with the assertion that the articles violate WP:NTVEP because the episodes have received sufficient secondary coverage. Each of these can and should be expanded further, not redirected. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Several sentences is not significant coverage. And yes, they can be expanded further - in the draftspace. That's literally what the draftspace is for. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NTVEP, Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It looks like there are multiple reviews in these articles, from sources like The A.V. Club, Entertainment Weekly, Out, The Guardian and Vulture. To me this shows that standalone articles are appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, almost every episode of every show would be notable based on that alone. Just reviews for its airing does not a notable article make; where is the development, the production, anything relating to the actual episode outside of the articles being mostly just plot? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also generally worth noting that just because a topic is notable does not necessarily mean it warrants having its own page: WP:PAGEDECIDE. Sure, the episodes are notable pages just on reviews, but are they actually best covered as individual articles? Is the topic of the RPDG Season 7 best served by splitting the episodes into their own articles under the current coverage available? Are these episodes best covered as a group within the season article? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"... but are they actually best covered as individual articles?" Yes! I'm confident these episodes have received significant coverage, and frankly I'm a bit disappointed at the obstacles being placed in front of me as I try to address an obvious content gap, especially form the perspective of LGBT culture and history. Each of these articles can be expanded to include details about production, ratings, and reception, including commentary related to fashion, design inspirations, performance assessments, pop culture references, how the episode fits within the context of the series and Drag Race franchise overall, etc. If you aren't interested in collaborating and improving the entries, fine, but there's no need to kill these just because they are not GA quality from the start. Again, if you assess sourcing for a specific episode and are concerned about notability, then you're welcome to start a discussion on the respective talk page. I'd love to get an episode entry promoted to Good article status, if anyone's interested in collaborating. If so, hit me up! Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Each of these articles can be expanded Fantastic, that's exactly what the draftspace is for! Do you oppose that? Nobody at all has suggested they be "killed", I'm not sure where you're assuming that bad faith from. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to move these valid entries into the draft space. I'm done going in circles, going back to building the encyclopedia now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Very well. If there's no further objections from other editors, they can be moved into the space designed for expansion and creation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No, draftspace is not for topics that have demonstrated notability. Take a look at WP:DRAFTIFY. Improvements to such topics are made in mainspace (unless TNT level, which this isn't as all the content is usable). I object to moving to draftspace. — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

almost every episode of every show – I've always been skeptical of this argument. I'll use The A.V. Club as an example here since it has more episode reviews than most places. Let's use their reviews from March 23, 2015, around the time of the episodes listed above. There are 7 shows covered as individual episodes: House of Cards, Bloodline, RuPaul's Drag Race, Better Call Saul, Bates Motel, WWE Monday Night RAW, and The Price Is Right (which was a one-off review, but I'll count it anyways). Using The Futon Critic's listings for that day, I count 58 new episodes released, implying that, as a very rough estimate, only about 12% of shows were getting episode-level reviews. That's not "almost every episode".

Regarding PAGEDECIDE: I think there is value in episode-level coverage for two reasons. First, it's very easy for quality to vary between episodes, and that detail would likely disappear at the season level. Second, when television is reviewed episode-by-episode, it would be very hard to combine those reviews into a coherent, WP:NOR-compliant summary of the season. In fact, I'd argue that episodes, not seasons, are the better way to cover reception for shows not released all at once to critics, as most reviews of the "season" (such as those that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes mostly use to calculate their scores) cover only the first few episodes. I think American Horror Story: Murder House (a GA!) shows this problem pretty well, but it's present in most season articles I read. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's worth also saying that this is a sample of U.S. shows, which have the highest (international) audiences and most attention. It should not be surprising that many U.S. TV shows that air week-by-week are notable on an episode-by-episode basis. This is very far from all episodes being notable. — Bilorv (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think for individual episodes, even if you can find two or three reviews, there still must be something fleshed out about the production to reasonably expand these to standalone articles. There are sources that routinely leave reviews (like AV Club) and while we don't necessarily dismiss those as applying to notability, that they are routine requires more than just those to justify the article. (To compare, film articles generally require a production section and do not rely solely on routine reviews from common critics).

Some TV shows get production info every epieose (like Better Call Saul), but when it comes to competitive reality shows, this rarely happens, typically with any production detail speaking to the entire season rather than any specific episode (for example, even with Survivor: Island of the Idols's infamous controversy, it was discussed in sources as a season factor rather than the specific episode). I have a difficult time accepting that these RuPaul Drag Race episodes really are notable individually because there is likely never going to be production info (everything being shot on a stage set) that doesn't apply to the season as a whole, and thus these should all be redirected and/or draftified until they can show reasonable means to expand production on an individual episode. Masem (t) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of focusing on a single episode instead of just assuming these should be mass redirected. If someone wants to propose an individual article to be representative of others, I'd welcome a more thorough assessment and opportunity to put my money where my mouth is in terms of demonstrating notability of a single episode. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I concur that these should be merged to the main RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) article. The episode summaries and viewership are already there and a couple generic lines on the letter grade one critic gave and a ranking another critic gave are not substantive enough to justify a standalone article. This sort of reception can also be included in the main page; without episode-specific production information, it's routine and not particularly informative. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not going to reply to the above comment by an editor who I've asked to leave me alone many times. My offers stands: if someone will just pick an episode, I'll roll up my sleeves and do my best to demonstrate notability. What do you have to lose? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's probably no issue for you yourself to pick an episode and demonstrate how well you can expand it to go beyond "routine reviews" for the episode. The issue raised is that you are just scraping the GNG (whereas the season clearly passes it), and thus why a standalone article is appropriate rather than containing the info within the main season page. Masem (t) 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Masem I was hoping someone else would select an episode, so I can't be accused of cherry-picking. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh. @Bgsu98: I see you've redirected. Would you be willing to revert for now, and select a single episode for me to work on? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC) I've reverted your redirects, given this ongoing discussion and my offer to focus on a single episode of an editor's choosing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Seems you've selected And the Rest Is Drag. Thanks, I'll get to work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why not work on all of them? Why did one in particular have to be picked? All nine barely scrape GNG. I therefore nominate they all be worked on - does that help? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, And the Rest Is Drag is currently up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And the Rest Is Drag - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Late night television in the United States

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Late_night_television_in_the_United_States#Breadth_of_template, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (chat!) 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hoshi no Kinka#Requested move 25 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hoshi no Kinka#Requested move 25 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with the clean-up of subtle vandalism on Asian TV shows coming from an IP range

Vandal(s) coming from an IP range (2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) have been conducting large amounts of subtle vandalism/incorrect information (including changing dates, times, number of episodes, etc.) on a number of television shows originating in Asia. TV shows are not my forte (especially Asian TV shows); however, it would be helpful if someone with this interest/experience could go through the recent edits this range has been making and clean them up. Thanks! (Link to edits from the range: Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuing Television programmes as a subsection

Were Looking for a WIDER range or views from people about the use of Continuing Television programmes strand in WIKI pages. A smaller discussion has started here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_in_British_television#Continuing_television_programmes but its clear were going to have to get a wider group of people since it may effect more than several hundred articles across several countries. Crazyseiko (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliability of entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six)

There is a request for comment on the reliability of entertainment coverage of the New York Post and its sub-publications Decider and Page Six. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six). — Newslinger talk 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Edited to add Page Six — Newslinger talk 03:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" at AFD

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Morningstar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaggie. Your comments on these AfDs would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

YouTube clips

Any thoughts on adding promotional clips from studios to articles, like this? Seems suspect to me. @Dhx1. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See commons:User_talk:Dhx1#Copyright_violation for further discussion and links to precedents. Copyright considerations are best discussed at Commons. If the concern is with promotional material used on Wikipedia (advertising posters, trailers, etc), these videos being CC-BY licensed could be trimmed to remove any overly promotional content such as "Movie now available on Amazon Prime" as a first step. Generally though, these videos may be the only freely licensed video and audio available demonstrating actors voices and acting styles, or settings and costumes and props of various movies and television series, so they add a fair bit of value to an article otherwise devoid of examples of an actor's style. Dhx1 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree with adding trailers to articles (with no context). Also how are these not copyrighted? Mike Allen 14:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I also do not agree with adding trailers to articles with no context. Those added by Dhx1 (talk | contribs), that I have seen, contain advertising at the end, and in my opinion, the trailers themselves only serve to clutter the articles.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:MikeAllen and User:Anita5192. Whether if the video clips are under Creative Commons or in the public domain, they cannot be used per MOS:TRAILER and WP:NOTADVERT. The Film Creator (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be more on board with this if the clips were of a key scene that is widely discussed in the article, for example. Currently if we want to illustrate scenes like that we have to use a screenshot from the show, a clip would be better than that. But it does seem to be opening a can of worms to start including these. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that we often include movie posters and screenshots of key scenes when they are not free, I'd leap at the chance to add a legitimately free trailer or scene. The existence of such a thing also prevents us from using a non-free work in that case under WP:NFCCP#1. If it's legitimately free for our purposes then we can trim overtly advertorial parts of a trailer, extract key scenes and intersperse them at relevant places (where there's analysis of that scene), and even remove brand logos. To some extent all aspects of our articles on television potentially increase the value of a product to corporations, but as long as that is not our intention and reason for inclusion (just a side effect) it doesn't fall afoul of policy. — Bilorv (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with several of the other users here. There is no encyclopedic value to just add movie trailers with no context or commentary. That's what YouTube and social media are for, not Wikipedia. We are not going to provide free advertising for Amazon or any other company. Just adding trailers or movie scenes to discuss "actors voices and acting styles, or settings and costumes and props" also seems to be a violation of OR/SYNTH in my opinion. I have reverted the remaining clips added by Dhx1 until further notice. TNstingray (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

ANTM ShortSummaries suppressed?

Why are short episode summaries for America's Next Top Model suppressed? They appear neither in the List of America's Next Top Model episodes article, nor in individual season articles (like America's Next Top Model season 13 or America's Next Top Model season 11 or America's Next Top Model season 24). -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas This is due to the moves being performed as part of the RfC on TV season article titles. As mentioned at the relevant Bot Requests thread, cleanup will be performed after these moves are fully completed, which includes updating usages of {{Episode list/sublist}} (in this particular example, from {{Episode list/sublist|America's Next Top Model (season 13)}} to {{Episode list/sublist|America's Next Top Model season 13}}. If you would like to do these updates manually, you are welcome to, else they will be completed automatically imminently. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You can see the full list of updates at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Technical updates. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! But, thanks for the explanation! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

{{Episode list/sublist}} usages should all now be updated and summaries visible again. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Cobra Kai season articles

After the mass change to the titles of the TV season articles - where the parentheses are no longer used with the "season x" part - there have obviously been some side-effects. In the case of the ones for Cobra Kai (see Cobra Kai season 1 for example), the "season x" part is being italicized along with the TV series title. This may also be the case for some other TV series, but I've seen the article title displayed properly for others, where only the series is italicized and the "season x" part isn't. Using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} doesn't resolve things, as far as Cobra Kai goes, so how can this be resolved? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have solved the issue at Cobra Kai season 1, the same thing happened at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 1. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

For anyone that has the same issue on other season articles, add |italic_title=no to usages of {{Infobox album}}. This is because {{Infobox album}} is similar to {{Infobox television season}}, in how it also attempts to italicize the article title. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, this is currently my active job for Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Technical updates; I'm using AWB to filter through all articles that use {{Infobox television season}} and contain "Infobox album", and once I have that list, AWB will add the relevant parameter to all articles that still need it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This should now be fixed for all articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

TV show season article titles issues

I want a new discussion for a solution regarding TV show season article titles that are currently have without special characters. Only have space on the title of those articles is not an improvement, it's a nuisance. Having special characters on those titles help with the consistency in some of the TV show titles and having that removed causes an issue. For example, "Chicago P.D. season 2". At the end, that show as a period on "P.D." and having that space does not help. Having special characters would help that. So I want to offer this:

The options are:

Options

No.	Description	Example A	Example B	Example C
1	Parentheses after series name	The Simpsons (season 8)	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10)	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series, season 3)
2	Comma after series name	The Simpsons, season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series), season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series), season 3
3	Colon after series name	The Simpsons: season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series): season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series): season 3
4	Dash after series name	The Simpsons – season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) – season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) – season 3

There should a discussion about it to have special characters to have consistency without using space. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The RFC to make this change closed less than a month ago. I personally thought that there were better options than just a space, but rehashing this whole debate again right after the prior discussion closed is not a classy move, in my opinion. And trying to open discussion here after raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) comes across as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's gonna have to be an exception because space is not a solution. We need to have a better option than that. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This exact array of options was already considered and discussed at the RFC. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: Not by me. Space is not an opinion for TV show season article titles. There should a special character or characters for it for consistency proposes. Space is not the kind of thing to use for TV show season article titles and makes the title layout of it inconsistent. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll tell you why. Because space takes away the consistency of the TV show season articles title and having space affects it. Special characters like the parentheses were there on the season articles because it helps avoid issues like Chicago P.D. (TV series) does. In that show's season articles, the results of it shows Chicago P.D. season 1 without the parentheses. Without that, it would cause some consistency with the title display layout. Parentheses was there in the Chicago P.D. season articles to prevent that issue. Better start rethinking that and set up a new RfC on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Not by me" is not a valid explanation; I understand you may not like it, but the RFC was open for over two months, and closed with a very clear consensus. Remember: Consensus does not mean unanimity. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not the consensus I chose to accept. Having space is not consistent, compared to special characters. Having something like Chicago P.D. season 1 and such without special characters on it is not very good for the grammar on display title.

I'm going make an argument about it and I'm bringing people in. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Then you're beating a dead horse. Doesn't matter if you choose to accept it - the RFC is closed with a clear and detailed consensus. Don't like it? That's unfortunate, you should have argued that at the RFC. Be careful you don't violate WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOPPING (again, and the latter is a stricy policy). -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not sign up for this. That RfC should've been about having change to different special characters, instead of having space along with it. Just so you know, I never knew about that. I wasn't even aware of it until after the fact. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There were options for having different special characters - they were options 1, 3 and 4 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. The consensus was to not use those, and to use option 2 (a space) instead. It's unfortunate that you did not hear about the RFC, but kindly read the last two dotpoints of Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 is a fail. It causing grammar inconsistency on TV show season article titles. That should've been brought up. I'm going to make an argue about it, no matter what it takes. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is clearly just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a waste of time. The technical updates can proceed as expected. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Then you bring up the issue about the grammatical inconsistency of having space on TV show season article titles and just find a way to add special characters on it to create better grammatical consistency of the title of each TV show season articles. Use that one for example. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The grammar and formatting of the title Chicago P.D. season 1 is valid and correct. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. There's a period in between P.D. and season. Imagine is another show has a period at the end of the title and season. I thought I should make a case. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct, because it's part of the "P.D." part of the title. "Chicago P.D." is the title, "season 1" is the season. This is identical to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1, for example. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The period in "P.D." is not a full stop but part of an abbreviation. See U.S. state. Gonnym (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that shouldn't count. I notice some people agreed that space is not an option. Those special characters on there on those TV show season articles for a reason, no matter what the consensus now says. Sometimes some consensus are not very good on this site and that's one. I thought you should know that. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

And that's your opinion, and now we all know that. Thanks. Core policies still apply to this discussion and RFC, however, and the consensus was determined as clear. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

To me I would go with option 1 as it makes the most sense and would be clear to know what it actually is (but we need to be sure to have a main redirecting back to the main series page if it has one, in case there’s 2 shows of the same name) Hoopstercat (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 is the style that we have moved away from; the RFC closed with a clear consensus, and using a space was the agreed upon format, there is no need to change it again. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I still there should be a special character on it. I agree with Hoopstercat. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Revived UK Gladiators S1 & S2 articles?

If anyone hasn't noticed, and are interested on the recently started BBC’s reboot of Gladiators, there are currently Draft pages for the two first series (the latter series being filmed this summer and airing next spring), that would be pleased if somebody could review them, and best if they would be accepted on the main article space.

They are both full enough of content, in my opinion, to be published, as the main article covering the full show is starting to fill with information.

The drafts:

• Draft:Gladiators (2023 British TV series) series 1
• Draft:Gladiators (2024 British TV series, series 2)

Thanks, 2001:999:701:134F:D0A8:4216:3A37:D1CA (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:TVSPLIT. Not enough to justify splitting off season 1 yet when season 2 has yet to even air. Also your drafts are poorly and incorrectly named. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We really wouldn't have three articles (the overview article and two seasons) when the first series has just ended. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as there is nothing official information or new episodes for the S2, which although has been confirmed, I also think that there is no need to split the articles.

I added the contenders' scoring -table to the main page for now, so the readers would at least get some info about the flow of the series, but the full infos of each episodes are on the Draft articles, and can be seen visible when the articles themselfs are created.

Maybe when we know some facts for sure about the second series, it would be more optimal to put the pages public!

2001:999:701:134F:E51B:DF47:9AAA:5E5D (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think that the Draft for the first series should be renamed like "Gladiators (2024 British TV series) series 1" due its technically being a 2024's show, and to match with the name of the S2's page!

2001:999:701:134F:E51B:DF47:9AAA:5E5D (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I've updated the Draft articles' names to their correct forms, as they were entitled wrong!

Samuelzzzz1 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Penguin (TV series) § Illogical and inconsistent arguments

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Penguin (TV series) § Illogical and inconsistent arguments. This is a dispute about listing multiple directors in the infobox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the nature of the discussion. It is only being argued that the directors are usually listed for limited series and miniseries, not for regular TV series. That is the point here and that is how it has always been done according to the overwhelming majority of the articles I've seen. This is not about open-ended TV series in general, so the attempt to frame the discussion in that context is a ploy constituting misrepresentation and misdirection. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You are posting this comment at multiple talk pages and in so doing are being illogical and inconsistent yourself. Trailblazer's post here is just inviting people to the discussion and adds that the discussion is about listing multiple directors in the infobox. That is not misrepresenting anything. Is your issue with the other discussions about this topic, or do you specifically think that what Trailblazer posted above misrepresented the original discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is inconsistent? Explain. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It is only being argued that the directors are usually listed for limited series and miniseries, not for regular TV series - Trailblazer didn't say anything about regular TV series in the above post. You have posted the same complaint in multiple discussions but it doesn't apply to all of them. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Early international release

Star Trek: Prodigy (season 2) is expected to be released in most countries on Netflix later this year, but the whole thing has just been surprise dropped on france.tv. This is clearly worth mentioning in the article, but what do we usually do with the lead and episode table in this situation? Should we use the French release date instead of the future US date, or wait for the US details and just make a note of the early French release? If we do use the French release date, should the series overview table include france.tv as the "network"? Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that we should wait until the US details are released first, and then make a note of the france.tv early release somewhere in the article. But then again, I'm not too certain myself. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Alternatives to writer and director parameters

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Alternatives to writer and director parameters. For a discussion on the possibility of adding a showrunner parameter to television-related infoboxes and limiting the use of writer and director parameters. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

University Challenge 2023–24

Any opinions on whether University Challenge 2023–24 is a list or an article? I'm thinking it might make a nice model featured list. I've seen both article and list classifications for season articles so I'm not sure if there's been a big discussion and consensus about this.

Feedback on the table layouts and accessibility would also be helpful. They are essentially results tables, where fictional shows would have episode summaries. There's some unsourced prose that is easily verifiable to the episodes as is standard practice. — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say its a weird mix of a list and an article... parts are list-like and other parts are article-like, if that makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/University Challenge 2023–24/archive1 where anyone's comments would be helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving franchise articles

After splitting franchise aspects of Dora the Explorer to Dora the Explorer (franchise) from a consensus at its talk page, there was still unclear agreement for how to move the articles even after it was moved. Over at Talk:Rugrats where me and other users were discussing whether to move the series page to Rugrats (1991 TV series) and move the franchise page to that namespace or not, it was said to keep those articles where they are due to Wikipedia:Primarytopic.

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Media franchise, the series page is supposed to move to a new namespace with "((year if needed) TV series)" to make way for the franchise page.

There should be a wider and better consensus for how to deal with franchise pages. Should it be: Series page → Series page (TV series) and Series (franchise) → Series Franchise (namespace)? Or will it be: Series page and Series (franchise)? kpgamingz (rant me) 15:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The answer is going to depend on what is the primary topic. If the original series is then that should stay where it is. If the franchise is then that gets the main name and the series gets the TV disambiguation. If neither is the clear primary topic then they should both get disambiguation and the main name should become a disambig page. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Michele Fitzgerald nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Fitzgerald. George Ho (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dare to Love Me (TV series)#Requested move 17 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dare to Love Me (TV series)#Requested move 17 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 3 April 2024 of The Singing Bee (American game show)

An editor has requested that The Singing Bee (American game show) be moved to The Singing Bee, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 21:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Doctor Who episodes‎

There is a disagreement at Template talk:Doctor Who episodes concerning the inclusion of related articles. Should Doctor Who missing episodes be included in any format in {{Doctor Who episodes‎}}? -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Star Wars episode articles

I have started discussions about some episode articles that I feel should probably be merged or sent to draft. They are at Talk:The Mandalorian season 3#Episode articles and Talk:List of Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes#Episode articles if any TV editors here are interested in contributing. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Bluey episodes

Can someone with AWB or a lot of free time please help fix all of the redirects to this page? The bot hasn't picked them up yet, and the move happened yesterday. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR Do you mean this move? If so, what redirects are you referring to? These automatic updates seem to be complete, and there's very few articles that link to the origianlt title. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Per your link, the bot seems to have taken care of it now. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. Double redirect bots do take a few days to come around and fix those redirects, but they do eventually happen. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion regarding a fix to help summaries be more readable on mobile to avoid the sideways scrolling

See here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

New "showrunner" parameters for the TV and season infoboxes

A new |showrunner= parameter has been added to {{Infobox television}} and {{Infobox television season}} per this discussion. All uses should be reliably sourced per the now updated documentation. For any more modern series that utilize this title, please feel free to begin updating articles, again with respect to the person and title being reliably sourced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Writer's Guild of America website is a great source for finding showrunners on American series. Alternatively, oftentimes Googling "show_name" "showrunner" (with the quotes) will turn up useable sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that WGA sometimes do not include showrunners. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That is true, in those cases I would recommend trying a Google search for possible results. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

User making large changes to TV shows

Hello, I noticed The Best Baker is making a large number of changes to TV show articles, you can see their contribs here.

The edits are tripping a large number of vandalism filters. As far as I can tell, it is a lot of category changes and removing episodes from main articles to their own newly created, dedicated articles.

It seems above board, but worried it might be a sock given that the account is less than a week old and making significant changes. Would like an extra pair of eyes to take a look at the edits. (To the user I do not mean to wp:BITE, I am just making sure I am covering my bases, please take no offense.) Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Some of the category changes seem fine, but they've created a lot of new categories I'm less certain about. The episode splits seem okay based on size (though WP:PROPERSPLIT should be followed). Also, the lack of edit summaries is not great. I'm going to WP:AGF and guess this is just a zealous new editor; maybe just use edit summaries so it's easier to follow what's going on and provide feedback? RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), not enough to split into a List of Episodes page until an article is between 50kB to 60kB of readable prose or 50 and 60 episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted one of these list of episode splits, at Star Wars: The Bad Batch, per MOS:TVSPLIT. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. I'd also be partial to reverting all of the other page splits. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert as undiscussed splits, and also WP:Copying within Wikipedia violations if there is not the proper attributions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Gethin Jones

Gethin Jones has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gunge#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gunge#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of NBCUniversal television programs#Requested move 16 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of NBCUniversal television programs#Requested move 16 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:American major traditional television networks#Requested move 16 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:American major traditional television networks#Requested move 16 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Dennō Senshi Porygon

Hello. There's a discussion about adding a potential production section as well as a reception section for the Dennō Senshi Porygon episode, which can be found at Talk:Dennō Senshi Porygon#Production and reception. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Bernard Quatermass

I have nominated Bernard Quatermass for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

You season 5

Joeyconnick, what is this new rationale of yours? "we don't list actors in cast lists until they are credited as such in at least one episode that has been released/aired". I haven't seen this format in other upcoming seasons like Superman & Lois season 4, where even recurring and guest actors appear under the "Cast and characters" section. Moreover, multiple actors have been confirmed as main cast members [1] [2]. However, you putting Tati Gabrielle and Charlotte Ritchie in the infobox was wrong since, while they are returning from previous seasons, we don't know if it is full time or as guests. Alex 21, your input please? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have seen this done at different times in the past but it never made any sense to me. If there are reliable sources telling us who has been cast in the upcoming season then there is no reason to leave them out of the article. Otherwise there would be no cast list until a series starts airing which is clearly not the case for any TV show article. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no position in this. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I pinged you because you were following the article and seem to know TV season guidelines well. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Close a dead WikiProject

Hello,

How do we close/delete a long dead WikiProject, such as this one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/House task force

Any assistance would be appreciated. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:INACTIVEWP—I don't think the task force page is doing any harm.

(On this note, anyone with knowledge of the show could help out at URFA by giving the third review to Pilot (House) or taking on Michael Tritter.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor of closing any dead task force, removing it from the project banner and deleting categories. Also, they do cause "harm" as they require active maintenance (look at the amount of edits that Template:WikiProject Television requires each time it needs updating) and populate categories that no one is ever going to care for. Ever. As as aside, there is also no reason to have task forces for single TV shows. Anyways Iljhgtn, you have my support of this ever goes anywhere. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I just do not know how to actually do the deed of deleting it or whatever we need to actually do. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

First step is this, getting consensus. The rest is easy. Gonnym (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Guest section - The Bay

While updating the filmography of an actor, on the series The Boy, it has a list of guests. Now, with other TV series articles such as The Good Doctor and The Neighbourhood, the guest sections have been removed as they've gotten too expansive. The article for this series, the guest section is just that. There are too many listed. Main and recurring cast is fine. Having guests listed is WP:FAN. I can't find where it says no guests listed on TV series articles. If it's not, it should be. Unnecessary. I'm going to remove it either way. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no "rule" saying that guests can't be listed at TV articles. You should review MOS:TVCAST for the current guidelines on how cast lists are generally expected to work for TV series articles. Essentially, cast lists should not be indiscriminate and that means not all actors are necessarily going to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. A common approach is to only include guest stars who have recurring roles plus potentially a few other notable guest stars. That sort of criteria should be determined through local consensus and will be different from series to series. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Guest section is for special guest stars/special appearances as in the credited as such on the on-screen credits, part of the main cast (past or in the present) in another series in the same network, a famous non-actor such as musician or athlete. Guest section is not for listing every single guest star. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at List of awards and nominations received by Mad Men

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Mad Men#Tables suggestion, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:PAW Patrol (franchise) has been nominated for discussion

Category:PAW Patrol (franchise) has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. The category is missing a parent category, and is the only parent of the merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney Junior#Requested move 1 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney Junior#Requested move 1 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Paruvu

Dear moderators

Listing this new page for your consideration.

Paruvu

Language: Telugu Filmy World (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Coke Studios

Relevant discussion here related to Coke Studio (Indian TV program) and others, including seasons related to each. Since the majority seems to be from the Pakistani version, the discussion was started there but also notifying other relevant projects. CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Naming of Top Model seasons

I'm not very active on television-related articles, but just happened to notice it. (Next) Top Model pages refer to their seasons inside articles as "cycles", however the individual pages of these cycles are using the name "season" in the title. I think one of the two must be changed so that there's uniformity.

Example: America's Next Top Model season 24. The word "cycle" is used everywhere in the page except the infobox. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes character mergers

I have proposed multiple mergers for character articles in Life on Mars (British TV series) and Ashes to Ashes (British TV series) due to lack of notability. Although I don't believe it to be controversial, how they are merged might be so I'm hoping to get some more eyes on it. Given the inactivity of Life on Mars and Ashes to Ashes pages/task force, I thought it best to ask here. I have centralised discussion at Talk:List of Life on Mars characters § Merger discussion. Irltoad (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ABC News#Requested move 18 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ABC News#Requested move 18 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Big 80's

The article The Big 80's has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I do not think that this meets notability guidelines. There are stray mentions on a news search, most results seem to be about other media (radio shows, compilation albums) that are unrelated.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gnisacc (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

MTV News has gone offline

While mainly used more for film news, this is a notice that all MTV News articles have been pulled offline, with it also noted that some of them are not even accessible in the Wayback Machine. This is why it is generally good practice to add url archives to all content added to prevent WP:LINKROT and being unable to access sourced content if sites go down like this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Allspark (company)#equested move 21 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Allspark (company)#equested move 21 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Ren & Stimpy Show § Creators

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Ren & Stimpy Show § Creators, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Is every single episode of Peacemaker encyclopedic?

So, we have an article for every single episode of Peacemaker (TV series). Are they encyclopedic just because two–three reviews? Now we also have the article Peacemaker season 1, and I think that we could merge these episodes into that page. Redjedi23 (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss a potential merge would be Talk:Peacemaker (TV series) or Talk:Peacemaker season 1. While I think there are problems with all those episode articles and they could all use work, I think you are going to have a hard time arguing that none of them should exist due to the amount of critical response information they have. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:YuYu Hakusho (TV series)#Requested move 8 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:YuYu Hakusho (TV series)#Requested move 8 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

{StoryTeleplay} updates

Hey all. I've made a number of updates to the {{StoryTeleplay}} to optimize/improve the template, and thought I'd share them here so we're all above board.

• The template (and its new module) has been renamed to {{WritingCredits}}, given that there's now more than just story and template parameters (eight, actually!); {{StoryTeleplay}} still works as a redirect.
• A "Written by" credit has been added, using |w=, which adds another option alongside an unlabelled credit, "Story by" (|s=), "Teleplay by" (|t=), "Storyboard by" (|sb=), and the three extra parameters. (example).
  • The default order of the parameters as displayed are an unlabelled credit, "Written by", "Story by", "Teleplay by", "Storyboard by", then the three extra parameters.
• An |order= parameter has been added. This allows you to customize the displayed order of all seven labelled crediting parameters. For example: |order=t,ex1 would list the teleplay and extra #1 parameters first, and then any extra writing credit parameters set, in their expected order; in this example, the remaining parameters would be: written, story, storyboard, extra #2, extra #3. (Any unlabelled credit set with |1= remains top priority and cannot be reorganized.)
  • This will therefore deprecate |tfirst=y to display the teleplay first, as the new parameter setting will simply be |order=t (this lists the teleplay before all other parameters). |tfirst= still currently works as legacy support, but its usages will eventually be updated and the parameter removed.
  • The default setting for |order=, if it were fully set, would be |order=w,s,t,sb,ex1,ex2,ex3. This would do nothing, as it is the default order; rearrange the parameters to rearrange the order.

The template's documentation has been updated, and the template itself should be running without any functional changes at this point. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If there are no concerns within a week, I'll go through and make the updates to implement |w= (102 articles), and update |tfirst=y to |order=t (401 articles) (and thus deprecate the former). -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Software vision mixer

The article Software vision mixer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I don't see a reason for this to have a separate article from Vision Mixer, although clearly the main vision mixer article is primarily about the hardware kind

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gnisacc (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Road to Rupert

Road to Rupert has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS advice

Recently I came across an editor who is aggressively going through article - mostly television though some other media - and removing most occurrences of words like "originally" - even going so far as to suggest that shows don't "originally air" - they "air", and a rerun is described as a "re-air". I could see this line of reasoning, and I do like efficiency of verbiage, but something about this seemed to making the articles less clear. Some people undid these changes and the user quickly reinstated them. I did approach the user and received a reply that stated I was going to be ignored; I was directed here to possibly get some second thoughts on the matter, thanks. Tduk (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have some example articles of where the changes have been made? - adamstom97 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many going on a day for a while now, two recent ones are My So-Called Life and The Boys (TV series). Tduk (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like @EagleEyeBerry is the user you are talking about, and their changes are focused on removing redundant wording. Looking at the examples you provided, I personally don't think any of their changes were correct but others may disagree. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree - and some did undo their changes, but the user immediately re-undid them and has shown no interest in discussing the changes. Since they've been doing these changes to a LOT of articles for quite a while, on pages that aren't all that monitored, and are redoing the changes whenever someone undoes them, I'm at a loss for what - if anything - to do. At least I appreciate your agreement on the changes. Tduk (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The only person I remember reverting me is you and I never said I wouldn't be discussing anything. I always explain myself. You told me to ask you before editing and I said no.EagleEyeBerry (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

EagleEyeBerry, if you make an undiscussed edit to an article and someone reverts them then you really should take your concerns to the talk page rather than making the changes again, especially when it is a matter of personal preference as these changes are. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:My Cute Guys#Requested move 9 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:My Cute Guys#Requested move 9 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Martin Keamy

I have nominated Martin Keamy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lifetime (TV network)#Requested move 24 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lifetime (TV network)#Requested move 24 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merger

A merger of List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004 and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2005–2009 has been proposed. If you are interested in participating in this discussion, please add your comments at Talk:List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2000–2004#Merge proposal. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Splitting Ronnie Gardocki from List of The Shield characters

I have started a debate about splitting Ronnie Gardocki on Talk:List of The Shield characters anyone who is interested is welcome I would appreciate the input. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:ABC News (United States)#Requested move 1 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ABC News (United States)#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Netflix television dramas has been nominated for deletion

Category:Netflix television dramas has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 15:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject Doctor Who has an RfCBEFORE

WikiProject Doctor Who has a local discussion for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Svampesky (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Move review for Liverpool 1 (TV series)

A move review has been put in place for Liverpool 1 (TV series). Please comment on the move review page, not here JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Category:Film and television backlog

If anyone is looking for something to do, their are many pages listed in the various categories over at Category:Film and television backlog. Gonnym (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nacho (disambiguation)#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:List of Saturday Night Live incidents#Requested move 1 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of Saturday Night Live incidents#Requested move 1 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS discussion

Hello all

I am not a project member, but have created and edited quite a number of film- and TV-related articles over recent years. I think that some experienced editors' opinions would be useful in this discussion about the MOS for TV leads. IMO it would be useful to have some consistency (where possible and applicable) over the styles for films and TV series, but obviously this needs consensus to be applied to the MOS for TV. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

30 Rock season 1

I have nominated 30 Rock season 1 for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status.

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Kristan Cunningham

Kristan Cunningham does not appear to be notable. I could not find any sources about her, just random blurbs and clickbait. Should she be redirected to Design on a Dime? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Udûn#Requested move 8 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Udûn#Requested move 8 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Reading Beans 19:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Magical Academy (2023-present)

A spinoff of Wits Academy and Every Witch Way. The season finale ended on December 28th, 2023 at 8/7c. The series aired with 10 episodes on August 24th, 2023 on YouTube and Nickelodeon. The series is renewed for a second season on May 2025 at 8/7c. 73.127.111.87 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company#Requested move 12 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:All-Russia State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company#Requested move 12 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show)

Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (American game show) has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lists of series characters by year

We have 305 articles at titles like List of Coronation Street characters (1990) and List of Emmerdale characters (2018). These titles are deceptive, as they are not for lists of all characters on the series in those years, but only contain characters introduced in those years - a fact reflected in the category tree for these articles, Category:Television characters by year of introduction, containing, e.g., Category:Television characters introduced in 1995. I would therefore like to propose at Wikipedia:Requested moves that all of these list be moved to "List of [name of show] characters introduced in [year]" titles. Any thoughts/objections/alternatives?

BD2412 T 22:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what you've suggested is the right naming and should be brought up to RM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I will file it within the next few days, then, thanks. BD2412 T 04:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I too would support these moves in an RM. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Alex 21: I have initiated the RM at Talk:List of Coronation Street characters (1960)#Requested move 15 August 2024. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. Furthermore, should it pass, I would suggest adding these "introduced in" titles as a valid entry under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#List articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

As the closer to the RM, given the breadth of support at the RM, this would be an appropriate addition. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Series director and writer credits

Concerning the page Rick and Morty: The Anime, if a source credits someone (Takashi Sano) as the "series director", is that enough of a source to state that they are the director of all episodes? An editor then said it was "safe to assume he wrote all the episodes as well" based on the credits of a singular episode, and then removed all credits; I have since added another source stating that Sano directed and wrote the series - is this enough to add them to the credits of all episodes? -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If there is ambiguity why not wait for the episodes to be released? Gonnym (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a discussion on my talk page where I agreed to do just that, but my question is: is there actually any ambiguity here, if the source clearly states that the series "is written and directed by Sano"? -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite often we get sources saying someone is writing a series which actually means they are one of the writers on the series, so I think it is fair to be cautious. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's also important to note that anime productions work differently from most western productions. Just because they're credited as series director or series writer, does not necessarily mean they directed or wrote all the individual episodes; you can easily find many examples of this on anime television series across Wikipedia. I made the original edit based off, maybe perhaps a misguided assumption, that the credits in the opening theme sequence would not change, because most of the time they don't. Takashi Sano was credited for direction/storyboard in the ending theme credits which are primarily used to credit the individual episode itself, but there was no writers section there that I could find. Take that as you will. I think we should just wait on a per-episode aired basis while keeping this information in mind if there is reasonable doubt to justify it.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I would wait for the episodes to be released as it did not explicitly say "directed all the episodes". — YoungForever^(talk) 00:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this. When there is any doubt with available sourced information, wait for the clear and obvious follow-up sources to back it up.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merging of Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Template:Angel (1999 TV series)

Proposed merging of Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Template:Angel (1999 TV series) at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 August 25#Template:Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Mika1h (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The New Pope episode names

Are the episodes titles really titled "First Episode", "Second Episode", etc, or are they just numbered episodes? Gonnym (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

TFC, Sky and SBS Australia list them as such, whereas HBO, Sky (again?) and Canal+ lists then as "Episode 1", etc. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Season article notability

I am not sure how The Rookie season 5 and The Rookie season 6 passed WP:AFC when there is only 1–2 sentences under Production with 1–2 reliable sources (rest are just ratings) and no critical response. Wasn't there a general consensus on this project that season articles need to pass WP:GNG and WP:NFTV to warrant a season article? — YoungForever^(talk) 13:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago on the MOS:TV talkpage when I found six season articles that all passed the AFC process with only a cast list, episode summaries, and ratings. I'd say that The Rookie article you linked definitely don't pass WP:NTV. I'd even go as far to say that 1-3 don't pass it either. Although they do contain more than just a few sentences, it's just a duplication of information that already exists in the parent article which isn't large enough in it's current state to meet the requirements of MOS:TVSPLIT and could easily continue to exist in the parent article only. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is the the same IP address that been creating a bunch of season articles, but has recently IP hopped to 82.46.25.83. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I left a message on the AFC talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd assume to the average AFC reviewer the amount of sources makes the seasons look notable, but the television ratings themselves should vary rarely be included in determining that unless they're independently notable (i.e. they set a viewing figure record, etc.) TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, television ratings with just ratings on the episode table and ratings table are not enough to pass notability. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In this case the mover was not an actual AfC reviewer but the point is still valid. I personally would not have accepted but I can see how someone would think the amount of sources built up to notability. Generally if I see a spin out I decline unless they have tried to get a consensus on the article talk page, and I know others do similar but not all. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:All American (TV series) season 2 and Draft:All American (TV series) season 3 are attempting to get accepted for AFC when both clearly do not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFTV at all. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I declined both of those drafts per above. kpgamingz (rant me) 00:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Both got resubmitted again without any improvements and declined by another reviewer. — YoungForever^(talk) 07:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I recalled this active discussion (having seen it on my watchlist) when I just came across List of The Rookie episodes and its season articles, then realized the discussion started concerning Rookie. I would like to merge and redirect all six season articles, if there are no objections. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no objections with that. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to reply to this when it was first posted. I also have no objections with them being merged. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

They may get recreated again by 82.46.25.83 or IAmJustPete. They have a history of repeatedly resubmitting television season drafts to AFC with zero improvements. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: and @Alex 21: Please see Chicago Med season 10 and Chicago P.D. season 12. They both got recreated with only 2 sentences Production section. This is what is what I mean when I say season articles fail WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES.— YoungForever^(talk) 14:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Both 2 sentences production sections are about the previous season, so nothing for the actual articles season. Indagate (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

IP address is edit warring at this point. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I also notice empty section headings for these upcoming seasons at their respective LoE pages that violate MOS:TVUPCOMING and WP:SELFREDIRECT. I'm assuming (but haven't verified) that it's the same IP. I've removed them for now. I suppose we could always move onto WP:ANEW if it becomes a problem. Perhaps WP:ANI since it seems to be more of a long-term NOTHERE disruptive editor rather than a clear cut 3RR viiolation. TheDoctorWho^Public (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

82.46.25.83 has been blocked for a month for disruptive editing and they had IP hopped 2 twice already which also been blocked for a month. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

 Update: 82.46.25.83 asked IAmJustPete (who also have a history of creating season articles that clearly fail WP:GNG and WP:NFTV) as shown here to create season articles. And then went on to attempt to get Draft:All American (TV series) season 4, Draft:All American (TV series) season 5, and Draft:All American (TV series) season 6 accepted for AFC (still do not meet the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFTV.) — YoungForever^(talk) 18:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say at this point. I declined one of the submission and marked the other for review. Both drafts are all missing a production section. I'm sure the IP user and Pete are doing this in good faith but they really need to read the guidelines from MOS:TV before resubmitting those season article drafts. kpgamingz (rant me) 19:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They may just choose to ignore MOS:TV guidelines. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

IP users, I mostly understand. They're not fully part of the Wiki community so knowledge of notability and MOS isn't 100% a concern for them. As for Pete, it's really whether or not if they'll eventually follow the guidelines and, hopefully, become a big helper for WP:TV, or continue in this path and keep getting declined. @IAmJustPete: If you would like to get the drafts accepted, please listen to the feedbacks that me and the many users here given you here and in the draft submission comments. kpgamingz (rant me) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I just declined the season 4 page for the series which was also submitted through AFC. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

They may get resubmitted again without fixing the problems in an attempt to get another reviewer to accept AFC. I seen this happened before. Not a season article, but an article about an actress: Draft:Raegan Revord. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I did make a note of NTV and what we generally expect to see at a season article in my decline comments. Hopefully any future reviewers, would note the previous reason. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP address removed your comments, but was reverted. The IP address have been resubmitting multiple Drafts without any improvements. They are trying to remove any indication of having them declined before. Little that they know, when editors' View history can see them. — YoungForever^(talk) 08:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a season article, but Draft:List of All American characters also fails WP:GNG was just resubmitted few days ago without any improvements from last time it was declined. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Update: Draft:All American (TV series) season 5 trying to get resubmitted again without any improvements. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Another update: Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 1, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 2, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 3, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 4 have all been resubmitted to WP:AFC when they all failed WP:GNG and WP:NFTV. Also, 3 out of 4 them have no Production nor Critical response info at all. Draft:List of All American: Homecoming episodes is recently submitted to WP:AFC which also fails WP:GNG, WP:NFTV, MOS:TVSPLIT, Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kp2016rockin: and @TheDoctorWho: All the Draft season articles of The Equalizer (2021 TV series) have now passed AFC without any improvements since the last submit of AFC. They cannot be Draftify because they were Dratified in the past before already. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, your earlier message must have slipped my watchlist or I would have declined them myself last night and saved myself a bit of time. Reading your message the first time, I originally thought that you had a technical error in moving the pages. I was able to move them using the regular move feature. After re-reading it, you may have been referencing WP:DONTDRAFTIFY/WP:DRAFTOBJECT? If so, I may have accidentally violated that and won't object if someone reverts the move based on that. Either way they're back in the draft space for the moment. If the draft moves are reverted, I suppose are next option is WP:AFD. TheDoctorWho^Public (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I just declined the All American article since it was still under review. TheDoctorWho^Public (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP address and IAmJustPete are still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. They are deliberately ignoring guidelines at this point, repeatedly resubmitting to AFC without any improvements. Draft:List of All American: Homecoming episodes is trying to pass AFC. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I just declined that submission on the grounds of MOS:TVSPLIT. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

There is also Draft:List of All American characters which is mostly plot points that belong on episode summaries, not character descriptions. No improvements since the last time it was submitted. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

At this point, just keep declining the submissions and get admin help with the AfCs. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 1, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 2, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 3, Draft:The Equalizer (2021 TV series) season 4 all got resubmitted again without any improvements since the last time it was resubmitted. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:CSI: Vegas season 1 and Draft:CSI: Vegas season 2 had also been resubmitted. I declined them all. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

They will probably get resubmitted in a few weeks with zero improvements again. May want to use this {{AfC submission/rejected}} with the STOP icon. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Rejecting the draft won't solve the problem because there's still room for improvements in the drafts. The problem is the submitters not following the guidelines, taking the advice and improving the draft for submission. kpgamingz (rant me) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: I stumbled upon this Draft:S.W.A.T. (2017 TV series) season 8. Filming haven't even started, Episode table is basically empty, and no premiere date, and etc. Most definitely not enough to pass AFC. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Declined; I've added it to my watchlist. (On a side note, have you considered applying for WP:NPR rights?) TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought about it, but I don't think I meet all the criteria for it. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you do suit the requirements. You never know. kpgamingz (rant me) 17:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: Draft:All American (TV series) season 2 got resubmitted to AFC with zero improvements again. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Declined yet again. It's like they don't take the critics and fix the draft, instead just submitting and hoping someone will glace at it and accept it as is. kpgamingz (rant me) 19:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: and @Kp2016rockin: Draft:Fire Country season 1 is a just duplication of info from the parent article. Draft:List of CSI: Vegas episodes is laughable, it was just declined 2 days ago and still not enough to warrant the split. At this point, they are deliberately trying to game the AFC process. They are pretty much disruptive editing as they are repeatedly resubmitting Drafts to AFC without any improvements. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho:, @Kp2016rockin:, @KylieTastic:, and @ToadetteEdit: Draft:Fire Country season 2 was just resubmitted to AFC again without any improvements. While Draft:Fire Country season 1 is still a just duplication of info from the parent article and Draft:List of CSI: Vegas episodes is still not enough to split. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Declined them all. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Stumbled upon this Draft:List of CSI: Vegas episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It was declined by an admin. I don't think it qualifies speedy deletion because it is a Draft for now. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I talked to the administrator; it was a little more complicated than I'd thought. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

courtesy ping ToadetteEdit as they were the AfC reviewer who accepted them. KylieTastic (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. In the first place, it feels that there are all fine. However I should be considering stopping reviews of TV seasons. Toadette^Edit! 17:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of returning them back to draftspace or nominating tnem to AfD. Toadette^Edit! 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily asking that you stop reviewing them, just that you familiarize yourself with MOS:TV (specifically, MOS:TVSPLIT) and WP:NTV.

Grey's Anatomy season 17 is a great example of the information that an exceptional season article should contain. Now that is a featured article and I know not all television seasons receive that type of coverage, so on the slightly lower end of good articles there's Magnum P.I. (2018 TV series) season 1. At the absolute bare minimum, articles like Law & Order season 21 and Cobra Kai season 1 (providing a permaalink because I do plan on eventually getting that to GA status) are examples of Start to C-class articles that still manage to prove notability with the information available. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:TVSPLIT,

There should be real world content to accompany any additional split that is not simply a duplication of the main page's content (e.g., reception specifically for that season, or that episode; production information for the season or the episode), or duplication of the season page's content (e.g., an episode article that contains one or two reviews, and used the overall production information about the season that isn't specific to any one episode). This is because notability is not inherited from a parent article, and all articles must stand on their own. So be careful when splitting pages too soon; if the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move.

— YoungForever^(talk) 22:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at The Acolyte (TV series)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Acolyte (TV series) § Survey. A discussion is currently taking place about the inclusion of information relating to an actor who was in consideration to join the show in a starring role. Input from the WikiProject would be greatly appriciated. BarntToust (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Merlin (2008 TV series)#Adding additional broadcast information

Newsjunkie added some broadcast information to the article, and I objected to it because it seemed like advertising to me. I can't speak for Newjunkie's experience in these matters, but I know mine is limited, so I invite (I believe with newsjunkie's consent) others to join the discussion so we can reach a consensus whether to add the material, not add it, or some other in-between alternative. Thanks! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

I have started a discussion about potentially changing the approach to determining the cast lists for this series at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power#Approach to the cast lists. It does not follow the standard Main/Guest/Co-star crediting style so needs a different approach from MOS:TVCAST, and the release of the second season has raised questions about whether the current approach is adequate. Any regular television editors who have thoughts on the best way to determine cast lists for the series are welcome to contribute them at the discussion. Thanks all, adamstom97 (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Episode article notability

Last year I moved Strange New Worlds (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) to the draftspace because it was basically just a plot summary. It has just been moved back to the mainspace through AfC (ping reviewer @Utopes) but in my opinion it has not been improved enough per our guidelines at WP:NTVEP. I know this has been a controversial topic in the past, but considering this page has been having similar discussions about premature season articles being created through AfC I thought it would be worth asking for opinions here before doing anything about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be moved back. A plot and a few reviews do not an article make. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @DimensionalFusion as well, they submitted the draft for creation and have now done the same for the similarly unready Draft:Children of the Comet. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 This was just declined DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The point of AfC is that a reviewer finds it notable. If they had not found it notable it would have been rejected and required further improvement DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

In theory, but as can be seen in the #Season article notability section above this is not always the case. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Strange New Worlds" should definitely be moved back. Doesn't pass WP:NTVEP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see why it should. It was created, pushed back to draftspace, improved and, to ensure it wouldn’t be deleted again, passed through AfC instead of just being published. If you don’t think the article is good enough as is, WP:IMPROVEIT. DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If it meets GNG (a guideline), then NTVEP (an essay) doesn't matter. A merger might be relevant regardless of notability, but I personally think it's better to discuss episode-specific reviews in episode-specific articles instead of trying to synthesize them into a season-level review (which could run into OR issues). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

My two cents: This is a page that was created in 2022, developed in August 2023 as the pilot episode of the Star Trek Original Series prequel Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, and the first episode of ANY Star Trek to air exclusively on Paramount+. (cn)

This page was inappropriately draftified in November 2023, after it had existed for a year in mainspace, which I moved back. WP:DRAFTNO states that only new articles should be draftified; the 2023 move was in violation of this by over 3 months since content began to exist here, and a year since the initial redirect. Another clause is that an article may only be draftified one time only, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is another aspect this proposal would theoretically violate. This page is not eligible to be draftified, but even if it were, there is an editor (in this thread!) who wishes to develop it in mainspace. WP:DRAFTspace is not a permanent holding ground for potentially unwanted articles. WP:AFD is the spot to take it to if there is a strong objection towards this page existing, which at worst would result in a blank-and-redirect outcome (as a likely search term and highly linked episode title). As this article contains substansive history, it should remain out of draftspace at the very least, and stay in mainspace as of this point in 2024, either as an "redirect with history", or as a standalone page. There's no benefit in letting the 2+ year history rot away and get G13'd as a draft; draftification is not a backdoor to deletion. There'll always be something at this title regardless, redirect/article or otherwise, so more prospective eyes driven towards potential future improvement will see this article and its lengthy history in mainspace. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Kevin Spacey § Kevin Spacey sexual misconduct allegations spun off into another article without consensus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kevin Spacey § Kevin Spacey sexual misconduct allegations spun off into another article without consensus, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists § FLs for television seasons. A discussion regarding whether season articles should go through the GA/FAC or FLC process. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jeopardy!

Jeopardy! has been nominated for a 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?)} 04:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

FAR for Michael Tritter

I have nominated Michael Tritter for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Buerge nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Buerge&nbsp– recently relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Postmodern television#Requested move 11 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Postmodern television#Requested move 11 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:One Piece (2023 TV series) § Recurring cast too long?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:One Piece (2023 TV series) § Recurring cast too long?. A discussion regarding whether the cast list is too long and what threshold of inclusion to use for recurring/guest characters. Input from the WikiProject would be greatly appreciated. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Television shows by host

Noticed that this category didn't exist recently when I was creating/populating Category:Action Bronson. There are three series in that category, and I think it would make sense to move them to a subcat, but since the tree doesn't exist I'm not just going to create one on its own. Since then, I've thought about why this tree doesn't exist/appears not to have ever been created before, and I couldn't think of any reason why it shouldn't. But given it's such a seemingly obvious gap, I figured it best to ask just in case anyone here has any opposing thoughts. So are there any objections? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Decided just to make it per the lack of objections. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_New_Yankee_Workshop#Low_Quality_Edits_from_Unregistered_Users,_Privacy_Concerns,_Reversions

Greetings, I am requesting a discussion concerning recent edits to The New Yankee Workshop page. WKatastrof (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Brad Womack nominated for deletion

The following link has been relisted just now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Womack. Your input there is welcome. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Deprecation of totals in Template:Infobox awards list

Hello! We would appreciate your input at this discussion concerning whether totals (|wins=, |nominations=, and |honours=) should be removed from {{infobox awards list}}. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Tales of the Jedi (TV series)#Two separate shows

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tales of the Jedi (TV series)#Two separate shows, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Passato e Presente

I am currently gathering my independent sources of this TV show titled Passato e Presente (Italian TV program that airs in Italy), which is a historical analysis talk show that discuss the past and comparing it to the present.

While I have not created the article yet as I am seeing if there are sufficient independent sources beside press releases from RAI Ufficio Stampa (press office) to see if it deserves an article on this language Wikipedia or not.

My question is this - Should a title be translated?

For example, one of the episodes of Passato e Presente (which is in it eight season) is titled "L'assassinio di Alessandro I". Should this episode title be translated or left alone? If yes that it has to be translated, where would I insert it in Template:Episode list? I got confused as there RTitle, AltTitle, RAltTitle and TranslitTitle. Soafy234 (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Updates to Template:Series overview

I've made some updates to {{Series overview}} in its sandbox and tested them through testcases; after detailing the changes below, and waiting for any opinions, I'll make them live presently. Legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed.

For ease, any parameter listed below with a "1" includes any season numbered parameter; i.e. |start1= being mentioned below means it applies also for |start2=, |start3=, etc.; also specials paramaters such as |end2S=, |end3S=, etc.; also multipart season parameters such as |released2A=, |released3B=, etc.

The changes are:

• Currently, to exclude an end date and make the start date span the whole two columns for first/last aired (i.e. the season was aired/released on the same day), you need to use |start1=[date]|end1=start. This will be updated to simply use |released1=[date] (no |end1= set). The |released1= parameter will span the two columns; separate start/end dates will continue to require |start1= and |end1= parameters. This matches the use of start vs release parameters across a multitude of television-related templates.
  • This applies to seasons and specials. Currently |start1S=[date] (no |end1= set) for a special will make the whole two columns for first/last aired automatically. This will no longer be the case; an end date cell will automatically be included if |start1S= is set, unless (as above), |released1S=[date] is set.
• If any part of a overview uses |released1=[date] for a season (specials not included), the template will automatically change into the format as if the |released=y parameter was set (i.e. "Originally released"/"First released"/"Last released" columns, rather than "Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |released=y. The parameter |released=y will still be available, for any series that are released through a streaming format but still entirely use |start1= and |end1= parameters.
• If an entire series overview uses |released1=[date] for every season, and no |start1= and |end1= parameters, the template will automatically change into the format as if the |allreleased=y parameter was set (i.e. just one "Originally released" column, no separate "First released"/"Last released" columns). This therefore deprecates the use of |allreleased=y.

Please let me know if anyone has any feedback. If not, I'll update the code and parameters accordingly. Cheers! -- Alex_21 _TALK 14:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That all sounds logical to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Have you set tracking categories for |end1=start so those can be converted? Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have now, it'll be at Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with deprecated end-parameter format. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How does it work if one season is released (weekly basis) and two seasons are aired (broadcast)? For an example, like Stargirl (TV series)#Episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That particular template doesn't use |released=y and uses its original "Originally aired" columns, but I do see your point. I might need to keep |released=y and still implement the second dotpoint above, so that the header still automatically updates, but |released=y can still be used as an override in a template full of |start1= / |end1=. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes TV series broadcasted one new episode a weekly basis for the first season on one network and then, the second season released all episodes in one day on another network. Or vice versa. Like List of Lucifer episodes#Series overview. Would this mean that we can't change it to Originally aired"/"First aired"/"Last aired" whenever there is a |released1=[date] parameter? — YoungForever^(talk) 23:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

All that is aired is by definition also released, but not all that is released is by definition also aired. So if there's any season that was "released" as opposed to "aired", even if other seasons were aired, "Originally aired" should be listed as "Originally released", as "released" covers it all. "Originally aired" should only be used in seasons that are entirely aired. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Updates made. Documentation also updated. Just quoting again for clarity: Legacy and new parameter formats will both be supported, until such a time that all live templates have had their parameters updated accordingly, at which point the legacy formats will be removed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Here are two [3][4] examples of the changes that will occur. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Have you considered a PrimeBOT (Task 30) request for these? This is how I handled the radio and TV station infobox updates in 2020 (renames of parameters and later removal of slogans) and may prove immensely useful to you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Released: Airing vs streaming

Proposal: Thinking about the use of "Originally aired" vs "Originally released", I'd actually like to propose that we just permanently stick with the latter, for both {{Series overview}} and {{Episode table}}. As I stated above, all that is aired is by definition also released, but not all that is released is by definition also aired. This would conform with {{Infobox television}}; even when we use |first_aired=, the row it still titled "Release" (this applies to {{Infobox television season}} and "Original release" too). Thoughts? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, and simplifies things. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Does this mean everything will be just first released and/or last released as no more first aired and/or last aired? — YoungForever^(talk) 08:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm intending, unless there's any opposition to it. I just feel that "release" covers everything. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Sometimes a TV series a co-production with two different countries have one country that broadcast a new episode on a weekly basis and another country release all episodes on one day. Having options avoid confusion to average readers. First aired/last aired on {{Series overview}} and Original air date on {{Episode table}} apply to Broadcast. Also, {{Infobox television}} still uses |first_aired= and |last_aired=. Sometimes TV series that broadcast a new episode, release the same episode on their official website and app the very next day.— YoungForever^(talk) 19:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And no matter whether it's published through streaming sites, or broadcast on television, or any other way - is that series still not by definition released? Since when has "released" only applied to streaming series? To release something is to make it available.

I note that {{Infobox television}} still uses |first_aired= and |last_aired= - YoungForever, can I ask you, what is the row header for these parameters when they are used? What is the recommended header to use for any release information per MOS:TVRELEASE? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

"Release", but that is different as it is the very top header on the {{Infobox television}}. First aired/last aired on {{Series overview}} and Original air date on {{Episode table}} are not the top header. Release is available online/on demand and aired is broadcast/not on demand. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the top header, I'm saying the label right next to the dates in the infobox. Release is available online/on demand and aired is broadcast/not on demand. There is nothing to actually support this. Anything aired or broadcast is, dy definition, released to the public. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Not everything air/broadcast is available to watch immediately. Back in the days, when everything was just aired/broadcasted on TV, we don't really used "released" on TV. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If it has been aired or broadcast then it has been released, even if it is not available to be watched after that point. We didn't use to say "released", but there really isn't any reason why we shouldn't now. "released" covers anything that has been broadcast and anything released for streaming. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

For an example, an American TV series released all episodes on a Canadian streaming network on one day ahead of the American broadcast whereas the same TV series broadcast a new episode every week on an American TV network. Not the same thing. The original air date is still U.S. air date, not the Canadian release date because the U.S. TV network is the primary network. Another example, an HBO TV series released the first episode of the TV series on Max two days before the original air date on HBO. The original air date is still the HBO air date not Max release date because it is a HBO TV series, not a Max TV series. HBO is still the primary network. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Neither of those examples are about what we are talking about here, we are not talking about the "original" network or release date which is determined based on other factors. We are talking about using the term "released" regardless of how a series is released. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is what we are talking about. Aired/broadcasted on a network is not the same thing as released on a network. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

For an example, an American TV series released all episodes on a Canadian streaming network Then those episodes have been streamed.

whereas the same TV series broadcast a new episode every week on an American TV network Then those episodes have been broadcast.

They have both been released to the public. There is nothing to support that "Release" means streaming-only, as both infobox templates have proved - they both list any release date under "Release", as does MOS:TVRELEASE. I think you may be confusing the general definition of the word "release" with "streamed".

Let's use List of Lucifer episodes as an example. Its first three seasons were aired, its last three seasons were streamed. All six seasons have been released. What would you propse using as the series overview header? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Local consensus can determine that. If it is release, then release. If it is aired, then it is aired. At least, you have options. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question for the given example. As far as I can see, there is no such local consensus concerning this. "Released" as never meant solely streaming, and there has been no agreement with you on that here. There has, however, been agreement that streaming and broadcasting are the separate types of release, "release" being the term that covers all types of distribution, which is supported by established guidelines and infoboxes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Original air date and Original release date are not the same thing. List of Lucifer episodes is different because 3 seasons were streamed and 3 seasons were broadcasted. For an example, List of Arrow episodes are all aired because they were broadcasted on The CW, not released on The CW. You don't say The first season "was released" from October 10, 2012 through May 15, 2013. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

They were indeed released on The CW. They weren't streamed, is what you mean. At Arrow (TV series), can you tell me what the infobox header above the Network row reads as, and what the label next to "October 10, 2012 – January 28, 2020" is? Using your own example, what is the label next to "October 10, 2012 – May 15, 2013" in the infobox at Arrow season 1? -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Original release and Release on Arrow (TV series); Release and Original release on Arrow season 1.

So, why is that it is not acceptable to leave as it is then? I see nothing wrong with using aired when it is appropriate to use. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Limiting to no options is making it worse than before because you are forcing editors to just use "Release". — YoungForever^(talk) 16:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying to leave those examples as they are, and update others templates to conform with them.

Anyways, this is going in circles and there seems to be a misunderstanding with you as to the general definition of "releasing" media, so I'll await any further opposition or comments; if there are no further comments, then we have a solution. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I do not have any misunderstanding. So, why it is not acceptable to continue using original air date, originally aired, first aired, and last aired? Why are editors forced to conform when it is perfectly acceptable to use "aired" when it is appropriate? Also, when templates are updated, they are automatically conform, hence, forced to conform. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going in circles with you. I've explained that difference between "released" and "streamed". Everything made available to the public is, by definition, released to the public. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions. We have the options of using aired and released for years and flat out removing "aired" is detrimental because you are taking away the option to choose. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It remains meaning the same thing. We haven't had that choice for infoboxes - is that an issue that's been plaguing anyone? -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are different though, they didn't have a choice to begin with. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So, it's not an actual issue at all. Okay, cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words. Having options to begin with and having them taking away are not the same thing as having no options to begin with. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have nothing further to add to this discussions, besides simplifying templates. If there is no further opposition, or if there is no further support for keeping the separate headers... -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

YoungForever your argument is that we should keep it because it is an option, not that we need it. That is not a good argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

We do need it because we have been using it. Currently, there are actually still a lot of TV series use original air date, originally aired, first aired, and last aired. Are many broadcasting TV series only using "release" right now? I do not think so, many are still using "aired". — YoungForever^(talk) 16:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of this discussion is that we can change them all to use "released". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of this discussion is forcing everyone to use "released" and claiming no one is actually using "aired". When the truth is that the majority of the broadcasting TV series are still using "aired". — YoungForever^(talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

And yet, if it was being "forced", nobody else has claimed that this is an issue, why?

Are many broadcasting TV series only using "release" right now? Yes - every television series article that exists on Wikipedia.

However, now, this is just back-and-forth now, no part of this discussion has been constructive. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It is because it has only been few days, frequent WikiProject Television editors may not have seen this discussion. The separate proposal only started a few days ago.

That is just incorrect, it is just what you to want to believe. The fact is most broadcasting TV series are still using "aired". Claiming no one is using "aired" is completely false. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That's why I'm not implementing it and said we'll see if there's any actual opposition. And nope, every television article is already using the term "release", that's a fact I've already shown above. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not true because you are only counting the infobox and nothing else. If you actually read broadcasted TV series articles, you would notice that the majority would still used "aired" throughout those kind of articles overall. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying those articles can't continue to use "aired" in the prose. Way to make a mountain out of a molehill much? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Majority of broadcasted TV series still use "aired" on Series overview and Episode table. That is a fact. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it's an option that is not needed. Once I remove them, then your argument is redundant. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Television Oita#Requested move 5 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Television Oita#Requested move 5 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Star Wars: Clone Wars (2003 TV series)#Requested move 6 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Star Wars: Clone Wars (2003 TV series)#Requested move 6 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge

There is a merger discussion at Talk:The_Daily_Wire#Proposed_merge_of_Mr._Birchum_into_The_Daily_Wire, suggesting a merge of Mr. Birchum to The Daily Wire. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Survivors (2008 TV series)

Survivors (2008 TV series) has been nominated for a 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. Spinixster (trout me!) 01:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal for Talent agent

I have proposed splitting Talent agent into a new article Talent agency. Members of this WikiProject are welcome to contribute at Talk:Talent agent#Proposed split. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The Bill

The Bill has been nominated for a 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

List of Television Episodes Notable for Negative Reception?

Can this be a new article/list? There are many television series that have been on for decades that have had notoriously bad episodes. For example, One Coarse Meal (SpongeBob SquarePants), Lisa Goes Gaga (The Simpsons), Skibidi Biden (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert), Seahorse Seashell Party (Family Guy), Arnold Betrays Iggy (Hey Arnold!), American Fung (American Dad), IMeet Fred (iCarly), Last Forever: Part Two (How I Met Your Mother), etc. Most of these episodes ruined the reputation of their series, are no longer aired on TV, or the writers have apologised for the episodes in interviews or on social medias. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How are these notable together? Or is it just a list for the sake of a list? -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all considered to be the worst of their respective series by many casual viewers and critics or ruined their series reputation to a degree and in some cases, the writers apologised for how bad these episodes are. For example, the aforementioned Skibidi Biden from Stephen Colbert, Shark Week's Megalodon episode, and Everyone Knows it's Bendy (Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends). There are lists for TV shows considered to be the worst and sitcoms considered the worst. So, I do not see anything wrong with this list, provided that there are Wikipedia-trusted sources outside of IMDB and YouTubers that cite these episodes as the worst and multiple entries aside from the ones I mentioned as examples. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Then if you would like to create a draft for the article and submit it through WP:AFC, go for it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions outside of the ten that I mentioned? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It stands out to me a bit that even as you're claiming these are considered the worst episodes of their series, the episodes you mention in your second post lack articles of their own. Meanwhile, I looked at "Lisa Goes Gaga", which you cited in your initial post, and the article for that episode claims that it received "mixed to negative" reception, which implies it's far from being notoriously bad. "Skibidi Biden" similarly seems to lack the level of condemnation that you're ascribing to it. DonIago (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Polygon cited Skibidi BIden as "the worst thing that Stephen Colbert has ever done" and many casual viewers hated it. Some described it as "the 9/11 of television." If Lisa Goes Gaga is not considered to be notably bad by Wikipedia-trusted sources outside of IMDB, then I suppose that The Principal and The Pauper could be in place of it as a Simpsons episode on the list. Even Matt Groening, the series creator disliked the episode. The Megalodon episode from Shark Week has its own article, and it is featured on the list for notably bad television series.

Skibidi Biden Is The Worst Thing Stephen Colbert Has Done

obamaatredrobin en X: "the 9/11 of television https://t.co/xqkbg2hg0n" / X

Stephen Colbert's "Skibidi Biden" Segment | Know Your Meme Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

From a video game side we have List of video games notable for negative reception but key for being on that list is not only an established critic aggregate less than 50/100 or 50%, but that there are long-term aspects of being that critically bad (that is, documented in reliable sources not associated with being a review), as to avoid simply just being a list of games with poor review scores. I think if applied to TV shows, you are definitely going to need a pretty strong criteria beyond just lower review scores, and unlike video games, where one bad game can cost a studio, episodes are generally part of a package so one bad episode is not going to have that great an impact. In other words, I think this would be highly difficult to create in the first place for episodes. --Masem (t) 12:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I started the draft and have a decent number of sources ranging from news articles and books covering the negative receptions of episodes such as Principal and The Pauper and Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives. Principal and The Pauper is often cited to be the start of The Simpsons' decline in quality by both critics and fans, and the megalodon special caused many to lose faith in Discovery and Shark Week in addition to perpetuating the erroneous belief of the megalodon still being extant in an unexplored part of the ocean. As I stated above, these episodes either ruined the reputations of their series or were so bad that the writers or series creators apologised or expressed disdain for them. Such as Matt Groening and Lauren Faust expressing disdain for Principal and The Pauper and Everyone Knows it's Bendy.

The criteria is that one MUST provide a source detailing how poorly the episode is received, entries that solely use IMDB or fanmade lists as sources will be removed. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article in draftspace? I think other editors (myself included) could provide better feedback if they could see an actual work-in-progress instead of speculating about how it could look. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

How do I provide the link? I have made decent progress on the draft with 12 entries so far.

The Principal and The Pauper (The Simpsons)

Seahorse Seashell Party (Family Guy)

American Fung (American Dad!)

Last Forever: Part Two (How I Met Your Mother)

One Coarse Meal (SpongeBob SquarePants)

Everyone Knows it's Bendy (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends)

The Great Divide (Avatar: The Last Air Bender)

Ren Seeks Help (Ren and Stimpy: Adult Party Cartoon)

Angel One (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

Skibidi Biden (Stephen Colbert)

Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives (Shark Week)

The Bells (Game of Thrones)

I could use some help in finding sources for claims on how bad some of these episodes were received though. I was able to find sources for Matt Groening, the creators of Avatar, and Lauren Faust apologising and expressing regret for their respective episodes, However, I have read claims on many sites such as TV Tropes and SpongeBuddy Mania of Clancy Brown, the voice actor for Mr. Krabs expressing hate and discomfort for One Coarse Meal due to the episode depicting Krabs as a phycological abuser that tortures Plankton to the point of attempted suicide. I cannot find a source on either the English, French, Italian, or Spanish internet that describes Brown's opinions on the episode unlike I was able to find sources for the three previously mentioned. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Listing items here doesn't help. You should start writing this information down in article form using a draft. See Wikipedia:Drafts, particularly the section "Creating and editing drafts". RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The Next Line

The Next Line has been unsourced since 2009. "Next Line" + "Kevin Frank" turned up zero results on newspapers.com and GBooks. Google itself even asked "did you mean Kevin Franke" while giving only fan forums, Wikipedia mirrors, and the like. Throwing this out there to see if maybe someone could find something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Film Music Reporter

I have started a discussion about the reliability of this website, which is widely used in articles that fall within the scope of this WikiProject, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Film Music Reporter. All thoughts are welcome. My hope is to come to a definitive consensus on the matter which can be recorded at WP:RS/PS. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PixL

The article PixL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub article with just 3 sentences and 2 sources, and has had the Notability template since 2020. I believe this article fails WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I couldn't find great sources from a quick google, but I am UK based, so that might not be the best. I find it hard to believe a channel associated with Amazon that makes original movies, and has run for almost 15 years is non-notable though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, it's merely something Amazon sells subscriptions to, not something Amazon runs. The reason for its GNG obscurity likely lies in its Christian orientation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not religious, I don't really know a great deal about that side of the world. There would presumably be Christian based reliable sources that talk about this sort of thing though, right? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)