Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Television infobox 'format' field

I haven't delved very deeply into this, but from looking at the articles for Judge Judy, Judge Joe Brown and The Peoples Court there seems to be room for improvement in the Television infobox. Those three each list their format as judicial, which is a page describing the judicial system. Would it make more sense to have a judicial (television) article describing judicial TV shows? --dinomite 12:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would, the problem is finding sources to support an article about TV show format.--Opark 77 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy episode problems

There is way too many cultural references on just about all of them. This is very trivial, plus is too much detail for an episode article. The show revolves around them: so these sections are basically scene by scene guides to the show, which isn't suitable. I suggest people being bold and moving the sections to the Family Guy wiki at http://www.wikia.com/wiki/c:familyguy. This nonsense needs to end, and by having the sections at all: just encourages people to expand them to every little thing that happened in the show. The problem has gone on for a while, and I've seen no one even attempt to clean the sections much. Any thoughts? RobJ1981 05:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

At the core of it, we have waves of new or drive-by editors (our most common editors) who simply don't know not to add this stuff ahead of time. I think what we need is a way to flag their attention, maybe with a hidden comment that shows up when you edit, or some other method. Hopefully being firm, but nice about it. Another idea, we have boxes that say stuff like "See Commons for pictures of this" to help direct people to our sister projects, and I think there is a version for Wikia. We could basically say "For a detailed list of pop-culture references see X". And of course, if there are any other GFDL or CC type wikis other than wikia that would also be appropriate, we'd mention them as well. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by edits are a problem, but Family Guy episode pages are like RobJ describes from the beginning, by design. Edit any of the Season 7 episodes (yet to be broadcast) and and you'll find commented-out Cultural references sections just waiting to be filled in. This is standard operating procedure for a group of regular editors. Attempts to "educate" may not help much since they are mostly aware of policy and simply object to it. / edg ☺ ★ 11:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ratings

I do not understand it. For example, Lost averaged 16.05 million viewers in its first season,[1] yet the episode with the least amount of viewers had 16.54 million viewers and when you do the math, the average number of viewers per episode was 18.38 million.[2] –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings are not an exact science, and sometimes people post articles on the estimated rating, and the more accurate ratings which comes out after the week has ended goes unreported. A report may come out saying the Lost premiere has an estimated 17 million viewers, but by the end of the night, or week or whatever, it turns out to be really 16.5 million. It also doesn't hlelp that Yauws is a forum, and not a news organization like The Hollywood Reporter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I used YAUWS because it has all the numbers in one place. Every Tuesday, ABC Medianet posts the ratings for every non-cable series that week. How can it be that only two of sixteen episodes of the second part of the third season of Lost had over the average of 13.82 million? –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an estimation. It depends on when people post the information, when they got the information, and where they got the information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answers, but I don't think that is really what I'm looking for. I don't think that the numbers are going to change after a week. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Smallville's numbers change after a few days, and if a certain site is using old numbers, or just plain inaccurate numbers then that makes a difference. I don't know what to tell you other than use the most reliable source, even if that means it's not the most outstanding numbers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, starting over. In its third season, Lost changed timeslots. On ABC Medianet, the day after a show airs, the preliminary numbers are released. Every Tuesday, they publish a full list of all shows with DVR playing within 24 hours after broadcast added. Those are the final numbers. In its sixteen-episode run in its new timeslot, Lost was said by ABC Medianet to have averaged 13.82 million[3]. This does not add up, because the show had the following number of viewers in millions each week: 14.49,[4] 12.84,[5] 12.95,[6] 12.78,[7] 12.45,[8] 12.48,[9] 12.22,[10] 11.52,[11] 11.66,[12] 12.09,[13] 12.08,[14] 11.86,[15] 12.33,[16] 12.11,[17] 12.32,[18] and 13.86.[19] If you average these numbers by adding them all together and dividing by sixteen, you get 12.49 million viewers. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it's a discrepancy on their site, and you should contact them to find out if it was a human error (i.e. someone typed the wrong number, or cannot add) or if there was something else going into these numbers that readers are not aware of. This isn't a Wikipedia issue. We don't figure out which number is right, we just use the most reliable one. If their addition sucks, then I suggest doing the math yourself and using that number with those weekly sources. It isn't original research to take an average from a set of numbers, as anyone can verify that the average is correct.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe I will replace the numbers. I am hoping that someone on Wikipedia knows the answer and will write "Oh, it's because the February and May sweeps numbers are worth twice as much" or something like that. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, if it were all that easy.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If reruns played a part, that would explain the ratings for the first two seasons, and if Live + 7 DVR ratings were factored in a couple weeks after initial broadcast, that would make sense for the third season. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are censorship sections notable?

I've noticed on just about every Family Guy episode article: a censorship section. I don't see how this is notable. Things are censored all the time, how is Family Guy any different? I would imagine there is more examples, but Family Guy is the main example I see of listing all the ways something has been censorsed. I want to point out: it's not talking about censorship in general, it's a list of all the censors that took place when Family Guy aired in syndication and in reruns. RobJ1981 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, I try to avoid them, unless there is something REALLY notable and it's mentioned by the production crew but if it's just "______ was cut out in syndication", then I don't think it's necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well season 1 episodes are done. If anyone wants to help me go through the others, that would be helpful. RobJ1981 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikia spam

There seems to be an increasing problem of Wikia spam on Wikipedia. A Wikia itself is not notable simply because it's hosted by Wikia or because it's a wiki, as such it must meet external linking guidelines (in the same fashion any non-Wikia hosted wiki would).

I do suspect that one or two people may be on their pay roll, haha. Matthew 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The wikias need to be linked somewhere, maybe best to link them on the respective WikiProject pages, as they are not mainspace articles. Since Wikipedia isn't here to focus on in-universe information, or be a substitution for watching a show, they are the only viable alternative (other than watching the show) that we can link to. WP:EL doesn't like them, but EL doesn't dictate WikiProject space, thus I believe placing them in a respective WikiProject would be best. For shows that don't have a WikiProject, I'm sure we can find a suitable location. Otherwise, do away with them altogether and bring on the constant bickering over why cannot write 1600 plot summaries, and talk about how Wilma totally had the hots for Barney.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The external linking guidelines don't actually define what makes a wiki notable. WP:EL discourages "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." I think it would be helpful to define what "substantial" means in that phrase. Is it based on longevity, number of contributors in a given month, number of articles? Is it possible to put any numbers to this, or is it just a matter of personal taste? -- Danny (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think good examples of wikis that meet the guidelines would be Memory Alpha, Wookipedia (both Wikia hosted I believe) and Battlestar Wiki (non-Wikia). Matthew 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, they don't need to be linked (just like every other fan wiki doesn't need to). I have had an idea though, a banner that could be placed on talk pages (sort of like the "This is not a forum" thing) it could say "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for plot summaries, etc, please consider contributing your content to one of the following wikis: link one, link two or link three" (I think you get the basic jist). And the bickering is never going to go away… Matthew 16:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for plot summaries or a fan site. Please consider contributing any such edits to: example wiki

Right, I know that there are examples that meet the guidelines. My question is: Can you be more specific about what the guidelines actually are? Is there an objective standard for determining which wikis are notable and which aren't, or is it just based on your personal taste?

I think the banner is a good idea, if we tone down the not-quite-civil "dumping ground" phrase. -- Danny (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there are any specific guidelines, which in itself is good. And you'll actually find that I personally support long plots on Wikipedia (plots are encyclopaedic, after all). But yes I do see your point. The examples I provided aren't based on my personal taste (I personally detest Star Wars), but rather the community's taste as they've all been linked for a considerable amount of time with no objection. Matthew 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to your taste in wikis, rather than the topics. You seem to be the user most likely to remove links to Wikia, and posting this thread is another example of your particular interest in expunging Wikia links from Wikipedia. I rarely see other users deleting Wikia links, but you have a long history of doing so. Therefore, your taste goes a long way towards determining "the community's taste" for these links.

So my question stands: What are the objective standards that you're using to determine which is a good wiki, and which is not? If you can't provide any objective standards, then how can we be sure that an individual editor with a particular grudge against Wikia isn't going around arbitrarily deleting every link he can find as "Wikia spam"? -- Danny (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider a good wiki to be one that has a strong community that can maintain it, not simply two or three dedicated users (with no guarantee they'll be able to maintain said wiki long term). A good example in my opinion is the Battlestar Wiki. Is it because I've removed a link to one of your Wikias before that you have branded me the "Wikia deleter"? The simple fact is this: while Wikia itself is notable, not all the child wikis are.

You'll also find that I have no grudge against Wikia (I have an account there… which edits…) I think your assertions of bad faith stem from the fact I'm removing "your" wikis (I guess it doesn't help that you've started several Wikias, all for new shows). In actuality I've removed several non-notable non-Wikia wikis before. Also you assert you "rarely" see other editors removing them, that message in itself reveals you have seen other editors removing them. Matthew 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you've operated out of bad faith. I'm saying that without any objective standard for what qualifies as a "good wiki" or a "bad wiki", the guideline allows individual editors to act in an arbitrary manner, without requiring them to explain or define their terms. It's easy to say that Battlestar Wiki is an exception to the rule, but how would you define what the rule is? -- Danny (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should propose some criteria or something? To quote a policy "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community" (WP:CONSENSUS), if a wiki is "good" (can't think of a better word here) then the community would remain silent, I guess. The difference here is I'm voicing concern, hence not being silent. Matthew 18:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one editor's voice would necessarily be seen as the voice of the community.

The real question is this: the guideline discourages "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

So what does "substantial" mean? You said that three editors aren't enough. How many is enough? Ten? Twenty? Is that total editors over the life of the wiki, or active editors in any given month?

If the guideline included objective criteria for making the decision, then people could discuss those criteria, and see if they actually filter out what we want them to. With vague, subjective criteria, the guideline encourages arbitrary behavior on all sides, and it closes down discussion more often than it opens it up. -- Danny (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I just ask, why does the quality of the wiki matter? FA articles on Wikipedia can have internal links to crappy little stubs, so why would it be wrong to link to a low-quality wiki related to the topic? Paul730 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have claimed my single voice is the community's voice, I have however not remained silent. Perhaps you should start a thread on the guideline's talk page to attempt to get a definition. Matthew 09:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say or even insinuate that you claimed your voice is the communities. I just asked why you (or anyone else for that matter) feels that the quality of the wikis is important because I personally don't know. As long as we're not using them as a source, why does it matter if they are well-written? Paul730 09:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you did, my message was in reply to Daniel's (hence the single indent, rather than two). But I'll answer your question, Wikipedia is not an external links database and shouldn't become one ("Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.") I have a question for you though: if we're going to link to every low quality wiki, why not every low quality fan site? (PS: Perhaps you should consider nominating the crabby stubs for deletion?) Matthew 10:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem, whatsoever, with our relationship with Wikia wikis. As another site that supports free-content collaboration, it's perfectly natural that we support them as they support us. This is pretty much a standing offer with any well made wiki, not just Wikia. WikiProject Digimon is about to under go a big project to transwiki a lot of our stuff to the Digimon Wikia, which will be a collaboration involving many of the same people. I'm looking forward to the project, and cross linking between the two wikis is going to be pretty important. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think we could argue with that logic "It's also GFDL so we should mass link it." You know full well Ned that even free-licensed websites must pass the external linking criteria, they don't get a free pass. I'm assuming the Digimon wikia doesn't count as a "well made" wiki, right? I've just had a browse of it… it doesn't look very well made to me. Matthew 09:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ned isn't saying that the Digimon Wikia is currently at a peak. He's saying that they are just starting on the process of moving things over from Wikipedia to the Wikia. Ned did quite a bit of work on this yesterday, and I assume that he and the other Digimon writers will be doing more in the near future.

Matthew, when you say that Digimon Wikia isn't "well-made", what do you mean? Again, what are your standards? You say that websites must pass the external linking criteria -- and again, I'm asking, what exactly are those criteria? If you're going to claim that a wiki isn't up to your standards, then I think it's up to you to explain what those standards are. -- Danny (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Matthew, when you say that Digimon Wikia isn't 'well-made', what do you mean?" I mean exactly what I said: "I've just had a browse of it… it doesn't look very well made to me.", my opinion. I think you know the criteria for external linking quite clearly, they're stated on Wikipedia:External links. The most relevant to this discussion is 4.0.12 "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." My personal opinion is that substantial history would be about six months and around ~100 editors for a popular show, as I stated though, it's a personal opinion. Having defined limits is probably not good, perhaps why there are none. Maybe a good idea would be to start a section on the talk pages were Wikia links have been removed, that way you could achieve a consensus on whether the Wikia should be linked to at present or considered in the future. Matthew 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

100 editors? The only entertainment property that has a wiki with 100 editors is Wookieepedia. Memory Alpha had 87 editors last month, and Muppet Wiki had 40.

This is why I think it's important to define terms. When you can define what "substantial" means, then the rest of the community has a chance to talk about whether that's an appropriate definition or not.

I asked you what "not well-made" means, and you defined it as "it doesn't look very well-made to me". I think the same circular logic applies when you define "substantial" as "substantial". -- Danny (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A look at Memory Alpha's user list shows over 500 registered editors. I wonder though, where did you get those statistics from? Are you saying that 87 users who are registered at Memory Alpha edited last month… or something else?

If you want to define terms then propose something. I personally can't give you anything other than my opinion because at present the point specific to wikis seems to work on discretion.

Well made to me would be: a) A presentable design (Memory Alpha or even your own Journeyman wiki (though it could be improved to be less squashy)), b) Working templates (lol!), c) It also doesn't hurt to use some fair colours (an example of something bad). Matthew 16:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize you were talking about total editors over the life of the wiki. I was talking about editors per month, which I think is a better representation of the current stability and health of the wiki. A long-running wiki could have had 100 editors over its lifetime but then abandoned.

You can see the statistics for active editors on Wikia here. That tells you how many active editors a wiki has during the current month, and in previous months.

I understand what you're saying about good vs ugly design; that can have an impact on whether you like a wiki or not. However, it doesn't relate to the external links guidelines, which talk about a substantial history of stability and number of editors. If we judged external links based on whether we like the colors, then I could take out half the links on Wikipedia. -- Danny (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As for my own standard, I would say that any wiki that has five active, signed-in editors in the current month is worth linking to. Five active editors is enough to keep the content growing, and ward off vandalism and general instability. That may seem pitifully small if you're used to Wikipedia, but a small wiki is on a completely different scale. -- Danny (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(before edit conflict) You asked for my personal opinion on what a "well made" wiki is, that's what you got. I didn't mention the external links guidelines… I simply stated my opinion. FYI I've not removed a link to any Wiki(a) due to personal dislike of the design. I have some questions for you though: What do you consider to be a "history of stability", what do you consider a substantial number of editors and what do you personally consider well made? Also my last question: If we were to link to the Bionic Wikia from Wikipedia article, should we link to Bionic Wiki as well? Matthew 16:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I would consider five active, signed-in editors in the current month to be a stable wiki. If both Bionic wikis reach that standard, then yes, I think we should link to both.

I think "well-made" is a personal opinion, and doesn't factor into this discussion. There are many successful, active wikis that I personally don't care for, for a number of reasons. But if they reach an objective standard for "substantial number of contributors", then it's not about what I like or don't like. That's why I'm arguing for a reasonable objective standard, to take it out of the realm of personal opinion. -- Danny (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you don't want to answer the question… fair enough. But I do have one question I would like you to answer: do you consider these wiki(a)s fan sites, or not? I'd lean towards defining them as fan sites, because they're ran by fans and written by fans. I'm wondering how you view these sites though. Matthew 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wikis are run by fans. -- Danny (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. But do you consider them fan sites or not? I think this question is important (for reasons that may not be as clear as they should). I personally don't give any more weight to a website because of what license is used (or if it's a wiki. The fact that Wikia uses the GFDL and is a wiki has been used as an argument for linking). I wouldn't give the Bionic Wiki anymore weight than the Bionic Wikia, even though the Bionic Wikia has obtrusive adverts (which also happen to bork the design slightly), whereas the Bionic Wiki has no adverts. Matthew 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't give a wiki more or less weight because of the license, the advertisements or the design. The external links guideline says that a wiki should be judged based on the number of contributors, and a history of stability. The important factor is whether the link provides information that supplements the Wikipedia article and is of value to the reader. -- Danny (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok good. Now the problem I see is that Wikipedia is not a link farm, in a perfect world we could link to every website that provides information beyond what Wikipedia can… but this isn't a perfect world.

To retain a focus on Bionic Woman (a show I'm using simply as an example), the present links section has seven links (including the Wikia)… not a very high number. But I can think of several other useful websites (I'll just list three): TVRage, Bionic Wiki and TVGuide; should we also link to them? That'd bring it to ten… but wait, I can think of several more… what about them? I'm hoping you see my point here. Matthew 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I do. External links should provide useful, interesting information beyond the scope of what Wikipedia offers. There is neither a minimum or a maximum number of links. If the link provides information that is of value to the reader, then it can be linked.

I don't understand your statement that "in a perfect world we could link to every website that provides information beyond what Wikipedia can... but this isn't a perfect world." If there are websites that provide information on a subject beyond what Wikipedia can, then yes, we can link to them. Wikipedia is not paper, and there's no reason why eight links are worse than seven. I understand your slippery slope argument, but links should be judged based on the quality of the link -- not on other factors, like the total number of links on the page.

I think it's interesting that in this long discussion that you and I have had, three other people have posted comments, and they've all been in favor of linking to wikis. You've tried to change the subject a number of times, but the question is: Can wikis be useful and appropriate external links? So far, the answer seems to be that they can. At the moment, you are the only person objecting to this idea, and your arguments are not very convincing. -- Danny (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if other people are following this discussion, then I think it would be great to get more opinions and ideas in this conversation. -- Danny (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have tried to change the subject (Wikias), though I do believe the specific focus has changed during the conversation. I'd welcome some quotes of how I'm changing the subject, though. To be straight I've not found your argument convincing (what little of one you've provided).

While Wikipedia is not paper it's also not "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" (There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.)

We've settled that these Wikias are fan sites; that's good. Now the policy states linking to a single fan site may be appropriate. So which link is the major fan site that Wikipedia should link to, speaking generally: A Wikia, a non-Wikia or a non-wiki? At the end of the day the result will always be born out of opinion, but would be the consensus.

Some arguments I've seen for linking to Wikias:

1. We should link to them because Wikipedia shouldn't focus on in-universe content.

Now that's fine and dandy, but not that compelling as it argues a project related matter. The idea of a links template for talk pages was thus suggested (perhaps we should continue that discussion?)

1. FA articles link to "crappy stubs", low-quality wiki".

An internal link is that, an internal link. But I'm not convinced that because "crappy stubs" exist is a good argument to externally link to "low-quality wikis".

1. They use the same license as us, we should support them as they support us.

I'm not fully sure how we support them, or even how they support us. But how does licensing come into play here? Unless we intend to copy their content (which I hope we don't). Or perhaps you're referring to this "transwiki" business, even so I'm not convinced this requires a link from the article either. Yes you may be "dumping" your problems on someone ele, but how is that a compelling reason to provide an external link? In fact I think the talk page template pretty much negates this argument.

Those are the three arguments I've seen for linking to Wikia. None are supported by policy or guidelines.

Some arguments against linking to Wikias:

1. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links or an internet directory, as such we have guidelines for external linking. (WP:NOT#LINK)

1. Too many external links not only clutter/dwarf the section, but they depart from Wikipedia's purpose which isn't to provide a list of links. (WP:NOT#LINK)

1. These links could be found with a search engine (Journeyman wiki or Chuck wiki), as such Wikipedia should not try to take on the role of a search engine. (essay: External links at meta)

1. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." (WP:EL)

Having looked at several Wikias (such as Reaper Wikia, Law & Order Wikia and Degrassi Wikia) I don't believe they can offer the coverage Wikipedia could any time soon (a quote from one: "We started in April 2005"–L&O).

1. The majority of Wikias all contain plagiarised content (such as images and synopses). Examples: [20], [21], [22] or [23]. You could probably claim fair use on the images if Wikia is hosted in the USA, not sure about other countries. Copying text though… no reason why you can't write it in your own words. (WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHT)

1. "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." (WP:EL)

As you correctly state there are no set definitions. The definition of substantial is "fairly large", five editors clearly isn't substantial. There's no guarantee they can stick around long term either.

I would be very interested in seeing a one of your "fall" Wikias that doesn't contain plagiarised content, unverifiable content ("Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.") and has a reasonably sized community. Matthew 18:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Every single issue that you described would apply equally to the sites that you think are okay -- Wookieepedia, Battlestar Wiki, Memory Alpha and Muppet Wiki. Those are fansites. They all use copyrighted images. They can all be found by search engines.

The question here is not whether a wiki is ever acceptable as an external link -- as you've said, some wikis are "good" and some are not. My question, as always, is: What distinction are you making between the good wikis and the bad wikis?

You say that five contributors in a month isn't enough to justify stability. What is enough? How's ten? -- Danny (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at Memory Alpha and Battlestar Wiki, both still seem to be claiming fair use on their images… perhaps you should re-read my message. I don't see any plagiarised text either. My opinions aren't really relevant, so I won't answer your question as it depends on several factors. I also don't believe I've mentioned the "Muppet Wiki"…

What I'd like to see from you is a policy/guideline supported message as to why certain Wikias should be linked? Matthew 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." WP:EL. -- Danny (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Great! Now could you please provide the policy/guideline supported message that exempts Wikia from the other guidelines? Please also give me justification (WP:EL) as to why the Journeyman Wikia should be linked to from the article Journeyman, a read of several pages shows me nothing that couldn't be covered at Wikipedia. Matthew 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew, I think it's obvious that you and I are not going to come to any agreement on this subject. If this discussion is just going to be you and me, then I don't see the point of kicking this football around the block for another day.

Your original post in this thread said: "There seems to be an increasing problem of Wikia spam on Wikipedia." The responses to your post seem to indicate that other people do not share your concern. Four people have responded so far, and none of them see any problem with linking to other wikis.

I would love to hear other people's thoughts on this -- but for now, the discussion on this page does not indicate an upswell of community outrage about linking to wikis. In general, people seem fine with it.

So, unless other people would like to get involved in this conversation, I would propose that you and I shake hands, and go back to our separate corners. Would you agree to that? -- Danny (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well. But I'd much rather continue discussion in an effort for us to try and come to agreement. But I can understand that this conversation is going stale… Matthew 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A lack of written policy or guideline does not make something forbidden. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If a Wikia is breaking copyright violations, then report it to Wikia (there's a link on every page to do this), and constant violators will be shut down. If there is other issues, deal with it on the talk page of said article. Matthew, you are taking an extreme position on something that, for the most part, hasn't been an issue, which is probably why we've been so informal about it. -- Ned Scott 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let me step in and say I broadly agree with Matthew. The addition of a wikia link should be treated like any other - on a case by case basis. --Fredrick day 01:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew does have a point in that simply being a Wikia wiki doesn't make it special, but providing an outlet for many fans who put too much plot detail on Wikipedia is a very good thing. Unlike most other links, wikis are open to anyone, and are just as much of a community-driven site as we are. Wikipedia is, and should be, basis towards sites which: promote, generate, and share free-content, and are open to anyone to contribute, and have reasonable potential for quality content. This doesn't mean such links have total support in being there, but they do have a little bit more weight than a typical fan site link. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

nope - they are fan sites, all that differs is the software - who but a bionic woman fan is going to spend time slaving over a specialist wikia? I also disagree with the argument to the future you present - suggesting links should be added on the grounds of potential is a terrible idea. The fact that they are open means nothing to me, I'm interested in the quality of the information. --Fredrick day 11:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to just point out that we vehemently link to IMDb and TV.com, and their information has some questionable quality--hell, they don't even provide sources for their information--and they get their information from users. So, what is the difference...other than the fact that IMDb seems to only be added by tradition.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that over at WP:FICT, the suggestion still remains and will remain after a rewrite that Wikia be used to move in-universe fictional content off the main Wikipedia pages. To say that Wikia links then are not allowed is going to make the entire thing a terrible hotbed of trouble. We're already telling newer editors that want to write about fiction they love that they can't write in detail about it on WP, and then we're not going to point readers to where such detail can be written about -- that's just trouble waiting to happen. I agree that Wikia links in an EL section need to be considered like other ELs, but there should be extremely heavy favoritism towards Wikia content recently transwiki'd from Wikipedia. However, over time, it may fail an EL depending on the Wikia content grows. --MASEM 12:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

but why would we give preference to Wikia? editors on individual pages can decide for themselves, the most suitable wiki to transwiki material to - there might be pre-existing wikis on specialist subjects that are more suitable. Unless there has been a behind the scenes decision that wikipedia's role is to add as a feeder for that profit making venture? --Fredrick day 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that content should NOT be moved to a Wikia if there already exists a "established, recognized fansite". Defining that may be tricky, but yeah, I'm definitely not saying that Wikia should become a fan site repository. Only in the case wehre there is no really good fan site should Wikia be the default location of transwiki'd material. --MASEM 19:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

We link to imdb and tv.com because they are the most widely used and most widely recognized "wide-topic" coverage places of "reasonable quality" of filmographies and release/air-dates. Their linking has been questioned before, but all-in-all people just like to have those things at hand. It's like having the episode count in your article. On its own its useless, but a couple of those small things together are sometimes useful. That does not mean however that we should use those 2 EL-"exceptions" to basically white-list all the other "crap". The more topic-specific these external links become, the more problematic basically. The reason is that it becomes more obscure. If IMDB would start to "really suck" people would report on this, and you would definitely see wide criticisme, possibly leading to a turn-around in administration of the site, a split, or the entire downfall of the site. If one of these wikia wiki's makes some goofs what is the likelihood that the "public at large" will be able to judge these sites properly on their mistakes? Also imdb mostly is a "factbook", now some of those facts may not be accurate at times, but more importantly the site does not give "encyclopedic" background either. There is no analysis or research involved and almost anyone who ever visited imdb.com knows this. People go to imdb.com to find basic info on broadcasting history and the filmography of actors. Not to find the history and story of the creation of the movie or all the things that went wrong when the movie was being filmed. This is also why trivia from imdb should never be used in wikipedia (it's not part of the core-business of imdb, much like keeping filmographies is not the core-business of wikipedia). (you might notice I talk less about tv.com Read the above, and you might be able to guess why).

In the basics wherever we link to wiki's (user generated external sites) most important is the way this information is compounded. Is there any editorial behaviour going on, or is it complete fandom writing? What are the quality requirements there and are they being adhered? What is the "usefulness" of the site (what does it have that wikipedia or imdb or fansite or official webpage does not have) ? Also any wiki should have found it's "notability" from outside wikipedia. There can be no case where a wiki grows to become the most "popular" wiki simply because it's the one linked from Wikipedia. It should have established itself within the community of a topic as such a source long before Wikipedia would ever link it. Every fan needs to expect that specific link

Also remember that for instance we only link to ONE fansite (officially) if it is widely recognized as being a useful place and being the most popular fansite on the topic. Also, is this "fansite" viable, or will it likely be gone within the year? Has it become "notable" in itself (not for an article, but for mention on the wikipedia article of the show that is)? Those are important questions to ask every time we add an external link.

In conclusion, we deal with basically 4 kinds of ELs.

1. Background information (highly reliable, very TV-show specific, non editable) (often usable as sources/references)

1. Factbooks (less reliable, non-show specific, widely used)

1. Fansites (highly variable reliability, show-specific, targeted audience)

1. Episode guides (variable reliability, show-specific, targeted audience, editable)

These 4 kinds of links have different properties, and therefore the inclusion guidelines also need to be interpreted different per category and per inclusion of the link. It is part of the nature of these categories. Each and everytime we need to judge them on all the questions raised above. Personally, I think we should create a "this talkpage is not a discussion forum" template, which includes links to episodeguides, fansites etc, just to avoid them ending up in the articles too much. Everyone who asks for "specific guidelines" is out of luck. It's just impossible. Please assume good faith on any edits and listen to your fellow editors. It's logical that some sites on the Simpsons are more widely excepted to be in the ELs then some sites for Bionic Woman, but to set in stone where that line in-between should be is impossible. There is nothing wrong with that, it's Wikipedia. Oh and we should DEFINITELY NOT prefer wikia links by default. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD: List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series)

I've listed List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series) for deletion. The AFD listing can be found here. -- Wikipedical 00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter Griffin

There is a lot of work to be done to get this into good article status. So I was wondering if I could get help? It's almost impossible to know if the pages I find on Google are trustable or just some random bullshit, since there are a lot of parody sites that use similar format as news sites. Peter is a TV animated character, and since Family Guy is actually more for adults than children I figured I should go here instead of the U.S. Animation WikiProject. Help would be nice, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Animation project proposal

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Animation for a project which would deal specifically with all articles related to animation, be they television, movie, web, or what have you. Any interested parties are encouraged to indicate their support there. Thank you. John Carter 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Programming commissioning

I think (though I might be wrong) that I've found a significant gap in Wikipedia's coverage of media organizations. I'm just sampling opinion at relevant WikiProjects to see if someone more informed has any ideas. The process of commissioning content for television and radio networks is an important one, with commissioning editors being notable media figures. The process affects the people who write and produce media content, as well as the commercial fortunes of the networks. Balances have to be made between artistic and commercial considerations, audience demographics (e.g. commissioning shows designed to attract younger or more affluent viewers), and in some circumstances, public service commitments. Should there be an article on this subject that explains details like how a show gets commissioned (who has to persuade whom? Are formats prepared to a brief specified by the network? What sort of test-screening or pilot schemes can be used to test a show's viability?), what the role of a commissioning editor is (I'm guessing they aren't in charge of scheduling a show... in multi-channel companies, can they even decide which channel it should be broadcast on? Is the tendency for different channels to have separate commissioning editors? Are commissioning editors' roles generally field-specific e.g. "Controller of Drama Commissioning", "Commissioning Editor for Factual Entertainment"? Presumably they have to work within the budget allocated to their area by their network, but do they have leeway to negotiate prices when trying to secure content or does that have to be authorized from higher up the company? Who becomes a commissioning editor anyway, and what is it the stepping stone to?), and what are the differences in the process between organizations with their own production facilities and those that rely on external independent producers - I presume the pitching process works differently? How do networks decide on when to re-commission a series? (In the middle of its run or at its end? Is it tied in to the advertising cycle that exists in some countries? In a first season of a show, are only the first few episodes commissioned in case it bombs, with an expectation that the rest of the season will be commissioned if they fare well?) Are there any particularly notable re-commissioning decisions? (I know that the re-commissioning of the original Star Trek for its final season, after an initial cancellation, only came after a major fan campaign - I'm sure such fan campaigns aren't unusual, but how is such a success rare?) As a general rule, how long after an original show is commissioned is that show actually ready to air? These are all questions I don't know the answers to, but I think Wikipedia should address them somewhere. Should there be an article at programming commissioning, commissioning editor or commissioning director that covers this sort of thing? So that replies gather in a central place, it's probably a good idea to post any thoughts at Talk:Commission where I wrote at first. I hope my query makes sense! TheGrappler 08:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki formatting problems on Maui Fever

I recently put alot of images from the show Maui Fever up for deletion, but i'm having trouble trying to remove images from from the episodes section. Attempts by me have met with possible formatting problems. Can anyone help me and remove them entirely?--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend using Template:Episode list, which would take care of the formatting. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My request was for someone else to remove the images. I'm kinda wrapping up research for something else and have no time to make such alterations. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Opark 77 21:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article candidate

• Trapped in the Closet (South Park), please voice your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trapped in the Closet (South Park). Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC).

• • Thanks for the notice. I've had a read and made a couple of suggestions. I've placed the FAC on the project mainpage, which will hopefully draw some more opinions. I also tagged the article as fitting with WP:TV, hope that is Ok.--Opark 77 19:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • Of course, that is fine, thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you to all who commented at the FAC. Trapped in the Closet (South Park), was successfully promoted to a Wikipedia:Featured Article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 05:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC).

Ratings, once more

A question - are tables of weekly ratings considered encyclopedic? I've removed them from a few articles for television shows because it doesn't seem appropriate to have a table of week-to-week numbers for U.S. viewers. (The data is irrelevant to anyone outside of the U.S., it is difficult to get similar numbers for all broadcasters, and the charts inspire amateur analysis of the series' possible fate.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't the guidelines here encourage including ratings information as a measure of response to the show? I think the average number of viewers per season should be included on the main page of an article but perhaps a table of week-to-week figures in the main article of a show is excessive. However, for individual episode articles the viewing figures for the episode in question are appropriate. I have no problem seeing ratings in an episode list format either as it is then just one of several bits of useful reference information presented to the reader.--Opark 77 08:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A general summary/discussion of how well it was received is appropriate, but I think a table of week to week is excessive and would fall under WP:NOT. That much detail would belong on a ratings site, not here. I'd agree with their removal, so long as there is something else in the article that already gives a prose account on reception (which ratings can help indicate). So, replace with something more appropriate, if needed, rather than straight removal. :) Collectonian 09:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking - prose that reflects the overall popularity, especially in the market or markets that directly affect the future of the production. Well-supported references, no "analysis" of what it means (unless it comes from third-party sources, or course. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds wonderful. It can be difficult to quantify popularity based on sources without using ratings though. Do you think its appropriate to include the average viewing figures for a season in the response section?--Opark 77 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I find original ratings encyclopedic, even if I don't live in the US. I merged week-to-week ratings to the episode list, see List of Carnivàle episodes (about to get featured). I think it works well there, as long as it's sourced. A short overview section in the main article is also good for season opener, finale and average ratings. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because it is difficult to find ratings in other countries doesn't mean we should not include them for the ones/one we do find. It's hard to find reviews for television shows in general, let alone in countries outside of the US, maybe the UK. Should we discontinue reviews because of that? Ratings are an objective way of looking at a shows popularity. See what Smallville (season 7) is doing. It's a column connected to the episode list. If someone found UK ratings it could easily be adapted. Frankly, American shows live and breathe by the ratings they revieve in the US, not other countries. ABC wouldn't cancel Lost if it was performing great in the US but poorly in the UK. But if it wsa the other way around, you're likely to see it canceled. That's generally because the TV business is built on advertisement space here in the States. If you cannot secure commercial space on your show, it's usually because the ratings are poor, which usually means no one is watching. Ratings would be considered "cultural impact", just like how much money a film makes is considered the same thing. The difference is that networks don't typically release the amount of money their television shows make for them, but Nielsen is kind enough to release the amount of viewers a television shows receives on average. If you have reliable sources to back it up, and you don't use original research to try and guess a shows popularity, then there is nothing wrong.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the few ways to track the popularity of a show over it's lifetime, has direct influence over said shows lifetime. I don't mind the idea of merging the data into a list of episodes provided it could be done cleanly, like List of Carnivàle episodes, but I also don't mind a small detailed list like the one over at Bionic Woman. Hewinsj 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine for the Bionic Woman show, at the moment, because the show only has 5 episodes--so there isn't a LOE page for it. It would be a problem if we put a weekly ratings box on say Smallville or CSI's main pages, because you're talking about 22 weeks worth of ratings for 7 and 8 seasons, which would be a bit much for the main pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the tables is this: what do they really mean to the average reader? The raw numbers are not especially meaningful, given that advertisers and broadcasters use far more detailed and specific criteria to assess performance. For example, a show on the CW might have abysmal ratings on a strictly numeric basis when compared to something on NBC or CBS. However, if those viewers are concentrated in a desirable demographic, the show will survive, whereas a higher-rated show with less desirable demographics will fail. Similarly, what is a "bad" number on Sunday might be a great number on a Friday (or vice versa, I can't remember which one is the better day.) Tables of numbers don't provide that sort of analysis, and they just invite uninformed comparisons. (One comment I had after removing a table was "Its encyclopedia type information because people can see if a show is in danger of cancellation.") I've no problem with referenced, overall ratings trends, analysis (third-party, or course), demographics, advertiser preferences, and the like. It's the use of raw data - just because it is available - that needs examination. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me serve as an example. I have one hour of must-see television each week (partly because by the time that popular shows air in my country, I have long bought them on DVD and no longer need to watch it in television). Still, one of my daily stops is quotenmeter.de, a German website that keeps track of German and American TV ratings. From the original raw American ratings I can tell how soon a TV show will come to my country, if ever. I'll also know what ratings a German channel expects until it cancels an American show in its program. And I'd rather do the analysis of ratings myself than to hear "the show was cancelled in the US because ratings slipped over the season". It's the kind of US-centric analysis that's unhelpful for me, not the raw data. (Edit: That doesn't mean that sourced analysis shouldn't take place – it should, but not at the expense of raw data except if you can link to an off-wiki site that lists them.) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz, what you are asking for is prose. The same thing could be said for box office numbers for a film. What does a film that makes 300 million actually say? We may know the budget, but we don't know the marketing costs, so the gross is meaningless because the marketing costs could very well outweigh the total box office take. So, should we get rid of instances where we mention box office numbers? If you have week by week data, you can clearly see trends in the viewership of a show. If a show started out strong, but then started losing ratings drastically, then you can clearly see that people stopped watching it at a specific point in the season. If the numbers were steady the whole season then you know it has a stable fanbase. If the numbers climb, well you get the picture. You are basically saying that if someone cannot provide an explaination for something that obviously affects the show, then it shouldn't be there? No one is drawing comparisons to other networks, it's just providing the most comprehensive information available. If no one analyzes a show's ratings, then they don't analyze them, but that doesn't change the fact that we have overall viewership. If you have more, broken down by demographics, even better. We measure fan reaction of films by the motto, "money talks", well that's simply "data", and on that isn't representative of the film's actual performance given that we don't know what the company really paid. Well, Nielsen Ratings are the only thing we have to measure "fan reaction" for television shows. If a show gets 5 million viewers every week, and suddenly shot up/down for one episode, then we can clearly see that there was either something horrible about that episode, or great about that everyone wanted to/didn't want to see it. If you want to compare numbers to CBS or ABC, in a manner that makes sense, then you need sources that analyze the "raw numbers". But if the only thing you are doing is showing the trend of the show's popularity on its own network, there isn't a problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Wikiproject Test Cards

The above named project recently was nominated for deletion and kept. As a result of the discussion, the article was tagged as inactive. It was also proposed during the discussion that the project be merged to this one. I am now formally proposing the merger as was indicated there. John Carter 15:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a test cards task force would be wholly appropriate for the TV project and would support the merger if the other project is indeed inactive.--Opark 77 15:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As the nominator for deletion of the project, I think this would be appropriate too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've cleared the backlog of assessment requests. We're standing on approximately 4700 articles to be assessed now. This should be faster as there is no need to leave comments when assessing an article without request. Would anyone like to help out? I'll pledge 10 a day if someone will assist me. Would only take us 204 days to get the lot done with two people at 10 a day!--Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done my 10 for today. See it doesn't take long!--Opark 77 01:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried to assess some TV articles a couple of times, but I've never really done so in the end because the Quality scale isn't of much help for deciding the appropriate rating - TV/fiction articles are a completely different beast than regular real-life articles. Also, quite a few (e.g. individual episode articles) have massive plot summaries but don't even attempt to satisfy notability and/or shouldn't exist in the first place. Could you (or someone else) give two examples each so that someone unfamiliar with the process knows what ratings apply? And what about articles that got redirected but still have an unassessed banner on the talk page? – sgeureka ^t•c 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I second this request. I've noticed most projects just reiterate the main quality scale, but it would really be helpful if it was written more specifically for the television project to serve as a better guide. I started to post that I'd help out, but then I started worrying if I'd be able to do a decent job. Stubs and starts are generally easy, but I have a harder time figuring out of an article is at B class or not. I'm gonna give it a run, though, to help the backlog. I can at least deal with those easier ones ;-) (45 minutes later, 18 assessments done, 3 more PRODed, one AfDed :P) Collectonian 03:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Collectonian. Redirects should either have the banner deleted or should be given the assessment {{television|class=NA|importance=low}} to list them as non-articles. I'm not sure which is more appropriate. Does anyone know?

It would be better to have a quality scale based on television articles. However, determining criteria for the rankings on the scale should be a collaborative effort. It would mean creating a few different versions probably i.e. one for television show pages, one for television episode pages etc.

Currently stub class in the quality scale reads: "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible." I don't think we need to change this but we should link to a couple of examples as Sguerka suggested. I'll keep an eye out on my next run through. Am I right in thinking its the high-end rankings where we need a bit more guidance, or is it everything? I think there are three key elements to most articles to do with television shows - production (cast, crew, broadcasting, music, location etc.), response (critical reception, awards and ratings) and plot. For an article to make B-class I'd suggest it needs to attempt to cover all 3 in reasonable depth and does not contain an overlong plot summary. I'm fond of saying in my assessment comments; I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here. Perhaps we should start by making an effort to adapt the TV series guidelines into the quality scale as this is an area written by consensus, what do you think?--Opark 77 10:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I think for redirects, just deleting the template would be better (and making sure where it redirects to has the template, if applicable). Collectonian 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A.E.S. Hudson Street is my first stub of the day. Its unsectioned and short which makes it a clear example.--Opark 77 10:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A.U.S.A. is another example. These two short-lived shows don't really assert notability so perhaps a more notable example would be better.--Opark 77 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay...because I'm insane, as of this exact moment, there are no more articles needing assessment that start with the letter A :D Collectonian 02:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good effort. Thank you!--Opark 77 10:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! Zs are done! Hey, we're down below 4400! It may seem slow, but we're making a lot of progress! :D

I did have a question, though. Some projects seem to set list as the rating for list articles, and I just wanted to make sure that was what we do with ours as well since our List section seems rather small? AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think we should. I'm not sure if I have been (probably not) but I will from now on. Thanks for bringing this up before we got to "L"!--Opark 77 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, agreed! I'll update the assessment page to note that, since its missing from the page. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And speaking of the assessments, I've noticed many projects have a customized Grading Scheme, with their own examples. I thought it might be good for our project to have the same instead of just using the default one. That way we can point to examples for each class, and have a place to (hopefully) put in more customized descriptions that would help with assessments. I've started the template here: Template:Television Grading scheme to show what I mean, get feedback, etc. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Television people

I'd like to propose a task force for people working in the television industry. WP:Biography has an arts and entertainment task force which loosely covers this but there are potentially many notable television writers, directors and actors so it might be worth us focusing on it too. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Screenwriters which covers both film and television writers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers which covers exclusively people in the film industry and not television. As it stands wikipedia does not have a community associated with supporting articles detailing the people involved in creating television. I have no problem with the taskforce being hosted by WP:Biography but it seems like it should be a joint effort between this project and the Biography project.--Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Television in Maryland

I proposed a task force to focus on Maryland produced television and film for wikiproject Maryland. This would include the TV programs Homicide: Life on the Street, The Corner and The Wire amongst other articles. Would anyone be interested? Would anyone object to the project being hosted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland. I think it makes the most sense for them to have it as all articles fall under their mandate while only the television related articles would fall under ours.--Opark 77 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Automated assessment

WP:Biography have automated some of their assessment process. I believe they use bots to assess articles in stub categories as stubs. Does anyone have a bot? Would anyone like to attempt this for WP:TV. Above there is a question about redirect pages with the WP:TV tag. Could we automate the removal of these tags or the automatic assessment of class=NA (non-article) for these pages?--Opark 77 10:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be an awesome thing to have if we can find a bot. I could have sworn I saw a script once that can also help automate some. It was made to run over the page, then offer a suggested class based on what the page had, references found, etc. as well as offer some basic (if generic) feedback about the article. Collectonian 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tags and Archiving

I archived the rest of the September items from here, which I hope was okay to do (didn't know if someone else normally took care of it or not).

Also, I was wondering what anyone thought of the idea of us having some tags similar to the film project's tags? I find them wonderfully useful for my work in there, especially the need image tag, and I think it could help us out here too for handing to do items. I'd be willing to try making similar ones for us, if others agree that would be a useful addition? Collectonian 20:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be good. I would try to use them when assessing articles.--Opark 77 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving the talk page. As far as I'm aware anyone is free to do it.--Opark 77 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the first one {{tvimage}} if folks would like to take a look and offer some feedback :) If this works, some other ones I thought of were for marking shows needing an episode list, shows needing a character section, and shows needing a plot section. Thoughts? Collectonian 07:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks fine. I'd strengthen the wording for the fair use part to "A low-resolution screenshot would also be appropriate for a show or made-for-tv film providing that the fair use guideline is properly observed, or the image will be removed." Also the link is to fair use the concept rather than the guideline: try [[WP:FU|Fair Use]] instead to send the uninitiated straight to the guideline. Those other suggestions would be good. However, more commonly I find TV shows needing a production section and TV shows needing a response section. For the episode list one we should point editors in the direction of the episode list template and our featured episode lists. For the characters section we should include the writing about fiction guidelines, request prose rather than a list and point them to the guidance here at WP:TV. Similar links should make the plot one.--Opark 77 09:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on the character section, though do we have any guidelines? I know one of the character guideline links is red-lined on the front page. A production section and response section are also quite useful, though the latter seems to be the hardest one. Far to frequently people will do "fan reaction" based on their own reactions, like "fans didn't like the new designs" and the like that can really only be "sourced" by forum postings and blog postings. :P Still, especially with some big shows, it really is needed and a tag would certainly be useful to help point that out. :) Collectonian 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about needs infobox too?--Opark 77 09:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the infobox is taken care of by the television project template already :) Collectonian 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

{{reqscreenshot}} has links to uploading images and the guide to improving articles, perhaps we should include those for consistency in our TV screenshot template.--Opark 77 10:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll take a look at that and see how they can be combined. Collectonian 14:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the image tag per the suggestions. I've also created these templates: {{Television needs production section}}, {{Television needs character section}}, {{Television needs response section}}, {{Television needs episode list}}, and {{Television needs synopsis}}. :) Collectonian 03:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Great job. I've used most of them in my 10 assessments for the day. Thank you.--Opark 77 16:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome and thanks :) I went through and added short intros to each of the categories generated by the tags so there are no more red lines. :) Collectonian 16:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed one small grammatical error but I'm not sure how to fix it. The episode list one puts articles in a category for television articles that "need a episode list" when it should be "need an episode list".--Opark 77 20:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the typo, but there is either some kind of lag until the pages using this template show up in the category, or I did something wrong. (Talk:Barbara (TV series) still shows up in Category:Articles that need a episode list for me, although it states on its page that it is in Category:Articles that need an episode list.) The old cat can then be {{db-catempty}} in four days. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Woops! Thanks for fixing that Sgeureka. I was able to fix Barbara still showing up in the other one by resaving her talk page, so I guess it was cached.  :) I went ahead and put a CSD with a note so maybe it won't have to wait four days for the old one to get deleted. Collectonian 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just popping in to say that I love the new templates! -- Ned Scott 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad they are already getting well used and are helpful to others :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

TV character

Is an article on a Columbo character notable enough to warrant an own article, like this one here? Should probably be removed no. Oblomow 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can get enough information for behind the scenes and reception sections. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

In theory yes but this should be AFDed as its unreferenced and the character was a one off so its not likely to meet notability guidelines.--212.57.229.16 23:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment - Judge Judy

Judge Judy requires assessment, probably a rewrite. Not my typical area of interest, but I came across it during other business and think it needs a major overhaul and copy edit. There is an editor displaying ownership issues; I've tried to start gradually in the hopes of working with him, but am encountering strong resistance. I've run User:AndyZ's peer review script on the article (this version) and I'd appreciate any input and contributions you might have. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment completed. I've left some comments.--Opark 77 11:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maging Sino Ka Man

Hey guys, I would like to request that Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik be merge into Maging Sino Ka Man since Maging Sino Ka Man: Ang Pagbabalik is season 2 of Maging Sino Ka Man. Thanks! -chris^_^ (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I've tagged both to suggest the merge, though feel free to be bold and go ahead and do the merge :) Also put them in the Project since they were missing that tag AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I requested for the merge, since technically I don't know how to do it. Thanks! -chris^_^ (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob. If one of the editors working on either article doesn't take the initiative to do and no one objects, someone from the project will :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Sesame Street

I noted that the above portal page has recently been turned into a redirect to the main article. Can anyone tell me why this was done, and/or whether you believe that the old portal should be restored? Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there was little activity and I doubt that there was much traffic, so I support the change to redirect. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The edit history for the portal page shows no constructive edits since it was started and some other redirects in its past. As there is little activity it is probably not worth having the portal in place.--Opark 77 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As to your question of why the redirect was performed the best bet would be to ask the editor who made the redirect.--Opark 77 (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing about characters

I've stumbled across the merge discussion of several character articles related to Scrubs (TV series) (which can be found here) and something User:TTN wrote made me think about guidance for writing about television characters. The discussion included commentary on the appropriate length of plot related sections in character articles. Apparently the relevant guidelines are WP:WAF/WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. However, while these guidelines imply limitations of the length of plot they are non-specific. Our guidance on episode coverage is very specific about using roughly 10 words per minute of screen time. Can we work together to come up with similar guidance for television articles about characters?--Opark 77 (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, I've been thinking about updating the character guidelines as well, but from another perspective. My opinion about this matter is primarily based on WP:WAF#Conclusions (the bolded lines) and recent personal experiences concerning a character article. I think most people would agree that the majority of character articles are very focused on primary (plot) information, are unsourced, and won't change any time soon. So, I've been looking through WP:GA and WP:FA for some content inspiration for my own articles, and I noticed that there are almost no TV/film character articles, but a lot of videogame character lists. I believe the reason is that most videogame editors start out with a character list and then add/tweak/de-cruftify so long until the list fullfils the GA and FA guidelines. But this is rarely done with television characters, who usually go from the main TV show page into their own individual articles. Because real-world material is hard to come by (or doesn't even exist), the only thing that usually gets added over the years is an overdetailed plot summary. And when people try to bring these articles in line with guidelines and policies and suggest a merge, they are often met with "but these characters are notable!" and "all the other TV shows have separate character articles!". This, I believe, is the underlying bane of current character articles, leaving the few people who want to do something about it powerless.
So, getting back to your guideline proposal, I'd go one step further and not limit the amount of plot-summary, but introduce a new notability threshold (actually, it is just WP:NOTABILITY applied to character articles). I'd prefer to merge all character articles into Characters of X lists, and only allow individual characters to be split off when they have established notability with already added significant secondary sources (with a lot of leeway for reasonable exceptions). The German wikipedia already seems to go that route, and they have little trouble with cruft: de:Figuren der Harry-Potter-Romane, de:Figuren aus Star Wars, or even de:Stargate SG-1#Hauptcharaktere (although I admit all of them are almost too strict for my taste). I know my suggestion will not be very popular, but that's how I would tackle this issue. It would certainly reward those editors who add real-world information, and keep original research and trivia to a minimum, making this encyclopedia overall better. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(And while we're having this discussion, would someone care to comment on Help talk:Merging and moving pages#What happens to categories after a merge?) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am completely in agreement with you on merging characters articles in to Character of X lists! Its something I do with articles I edit if the character list has gotten long enough to need to be broken out. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and ready to help! I really think our having some good guidelines about writing about characters would be extremely helpful for guiding editors, and for having something to point to when editing and cleaning up articles. I also really think we need to tackle updating or overhauling our episode guidelines. The article we have now seems to go against WP:EPISODE by (hopefully unintentionally) giving the impression that individual episode articles are the norm rather than a list of episodes, a list of episodes in a season, and individual articles only when they meet WP:N. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Just wanted to note that the list of TV articles up for deletion has been updated. Several of the current nominations are ones I made as part of the on going effort to clean up some of our TV articles and get rid of the fancrufty articles that do not add value to our articles. I think it would be good to get some comments on these nominations from more TV Project as most of the voting appear to be coming from the article fans and a few regular AfD voters. Not asking for a specific vote, but would like more input from other folks "in the trenches" so to speak who actually deal with TV articles on a regular basis. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Until poeple like you came along, there was at least some hope of keeping the information realted to these subjects alive, since many fansites became out of date, or were taken off line for whatever reason. But you and people like TTN, Ned Scott, and others had to ruin this too. Wikipedia has gone from a place where users can write about any subject, to one where we're only allowed to write what YOU want people to know. And this applies to every segment of Wikipedia, not just television, and not just fiction. ----DanTD (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've been spending several hours each day working on moving content to an external TV show wiki (hosted on Wikia), and am working on a setting up a guideline or maybe even a WikiProject dedicated to preserving this information. I actually like these articles, I just don't think they should be on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs

Hi, i recently noticed this wikiproject and i was looking at some of the taskforces/projects associated to it. I was wondering what the process is to creating a taskforce as i am interested in creating one for Scrubs. Eddie6705 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This page might help you out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, if you are looking to start a new WikiProject like Wikipedia:WikiProject The Office (US) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Lost. -- Wikipedical 18:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling PPVs

Hello, I am Alejandro Roggio from the Pro Wrestling WikiProject. I am here to ask of you if the articles about pro wrestling pay per view events should be part of your WikiProject. I thought they were, but none of them have WikiProject Television notices on their talk pages. Please reply, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to such an article (preferably one that you consider quite good)? I admit that I have no idea how such articles are structured or what content they offer, so I can only offer my help when I see one. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of pro wrestling PPVs, but here are the best written articles

FA:

• December to Dismember (2006)

FAC:

• In Your House 1

GA:

• SummerSlam (1993)

• One Night Stand (2005)

• One Night Stand (2006)

GAN:

• WrestleMania III

• Royal Rumble (1994)

• New Year's Revolution (2007)

Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Smackdown, Raw and ECW: yes. But not pay-per-views because they really aren't television shows, they're pay per view specials. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet they're aired on television...Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Movies can be seen on television too, what's your point? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Think of wrestling events like football events. It comes down to whether these specials were specifically produced/held for television (then yes, add the WP:TV banner), or for the attendees, and the event just happened to be aired on television (then no WP:TV banner). Hope that helps with the decision and with the reasoning, Raaggio. – sgeureka ^t•c 02:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The thing about professional wrestling is that they make the events for the television broadcast. You'll never see a major event like these to be held without them being broadcast on PPV. If it was with the logic you mentioned, the events would be broadcasted free. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 03:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, new movies are broadcast on PPV, and they don't get a TV banner. That's because the primary focus isn't on the tv release, it's on the cinema. With wrestling, their primary focus is on the live event that people pay to attend. The PPV show is something additional they provide for all the people that cannot attend, or don't want to attend. We don't cover music concerts that are broadcast on PPV under this project. That being said, the whole idea of Pro Wrestling is tricky. Technically, every show is live audience mixed with television broadcasting. You could look at this from both ways, seeing as the main broadcasting--Raw, Smackdown, etc etc--are regularly scheduled television events. The PPV events are schedule television events as well, just restricted to payments per viewing. I don't see a reason why there couldn't be a TV banner on those articles, they're all basically fictional-reality tv.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's necessary though. WP:PW is already doing a more than decent job of cleaning up and maintaining these articles, so why do they need to be part of this project too? It would be like making all wrestling pages part of WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Technically you could do it, but what would the point of it be? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Many articles fall under multiple projects though. Smallville falls under television and comics, and not because the series has its own line of comics. WP:PW is just a specific project for those articles. Depending on the topic, you could fall under 3 or 4 projects.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal for multiple projects to track the same article. Wryspy (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use for identification

Ed g2s (talk · contribs) is starting a crusade against fair use images for identification of a subject: this could possibly threaten the WikiProject's use of television screenshots to identify a series or article in an infobox, per his argument they should be used for critical commentary and not for identification. I invite fellow editors to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Screenshots / promo images in TV episode list infoboxes to perhaps allow a change in the policy's prose so as to allow understanding that fair use is acceptable to identify copyrighted work in general. Alientraveller (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To add to this, I've also opened a thread on a somewhat similar issue: character images. It's at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content#Character images and lists. I don't know if this has affected any television articles yet, but presumably the same logic would apply to articles and list articles on television characters. SnowFire (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd in Space

A group of IPs has been adding new episode information to Lloyd in Space since August. I just undid the whole thing and was reverted by an IP. I don't want to get in an edit war with these people so I thought I would let you guys handle it. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Days of our Lives GA Review: On Hold

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE is in dispute

As I'm sure many of you have noticed, there has been a big surge in the removal of articles about individual episodes of TV shows recently. It's sparked a dispute over the guideline that was used as justification for this. The discussion is going on over at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes, I figure since this is likely of significant importance to this Wikiproject I should drop a note here to let you know. Bryan Derksen (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out, the guideline is only a part of why something is removed. There's always context to be had for these situations. -- Ned Scott 06:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Needs revision and Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#RfC: Acceptable direction for WP:FICT guideline. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I guess those who think every last episode of every last television article every created should have its own article to give a blow by blow of the plot and silly trivia notes are out in full force now. The irony, to me, is that at least one seeming support is the same one who keeps fighting viciously to have the spoiler tag brought back and applied to film articles. *sigh* The discussion, however, did remind me that we seriously need to work up a real MOS for television articles. As I noted over there, our current ones are not that good, and our own episode one seems to go against WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT by putting more emphasis on individual articles than lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Most people are just upset at how some people have been handling the situation, rather than actually having an objection to the page itself. Hopefully things will boil over, like they normally do. -- Ned Scott 08:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't to boil over to become inflamed or more heated? I hope they calm down instead! :) --Opark 77 (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe "every last episode of every last television article every created should have its own article" nor do I believe that any article should contain "a blow by blow of the plot and silly trivia notes." Nevertheless, I do think there has been a movement to be overly harsh on articles about elements of fiction and to rigidly interpret/apply "rules". I do not necessarily believe that 98% of episode and character articles need to be nuked immediately, either. I think WP:EPISODE has some legitimate problems and drifts into the realm of instruction creep. Combine that with the way "some people have been handling the situation" lately, and you have an explanation for the boil over instead of blow over situation we find ourselves in now. I am working on an essay detailing this issue and would covet other editors contributions and improvements. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No way. People were frustrated with how to deal with these articles, and some of them decided to apply merges and redirects in great mass. That was not something the guidelines caused, but was simply caused by the frustration of dealing with the articles. WP:EPISODE, regardless of it's guideline tag, had consensus and was applied for years. What we need to do is address how we handle these articles, and not blame guidelines that are only trying to stop edit wars and mass AfDs. -- Ned Scott 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)