Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2021-05-04

To do list:
Major discussions/events:
Incubators:

Articles for every episodeEdit

I think it's time we stop making articles for every episode of popular shows. Some examples include The Mandalorian, The Walking Dead and The Simpsons. There's no reason to have an article for every episode, and some of them just plain out fail WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe work should be done to create an actual article out of Wikipedia:Notability (television), instead of it redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. A standalone article could cover pilots/series articles (ideally once it is confirmed filming on the actual season has started similarly to WP:NFF), season articles, episode articles, and other articles related to television and are covered by this project and MOS. Wikipedia:Notability (film) could be a good template to follow if we want to undertake this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd say only about 1% of episode articles are actually done right. Amaury • 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fully in favor of reworking WP:TVSHOW (the "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." line is massively misunderstood to mean "airs nationally = always notable!!", which has become a real problem, esp. for (non-notable) TV movies) as suggested, but that would be a big project. Maybe the best approach would be for somebody to just volunteer ("NOT IT!!") to write up a draft of that, and then have the rest of us comment on it and make suggestions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
From the episode articles of the shows mentioned I've seen (like The Simpsons) the majority do meet WP:GNG. As long as GNG is meet I have no problem with editors creating these articles if that is what the editors want to work on. The Simpsons is one of the few shows that have a standalone WikiProject and does quite well. They have 344 GA articles with most being episode articles. I don't feel that there is a need to create stronger notability guidelines that would cause a lot of them to be subject to AFD. If someone wants to take on the task of reading each episode article and evaluating it against GNG then be my guest. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 18:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe true for that, probably true for Seinfeld. But should there be an episode article for every episode of "South Park"?! What about SpongeBob SquarePants?! Because that's pretty much the situation we have now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Checking List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, most episodes actually don't have an article. South Park episodes do though. El Millo (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) South Park is in similar vein of The Simpsons in that every episode generally gets reviewed at this point with topical events covered in the episodes sometimes becoming noteworthy like Band in China which caused the show to be banned in China. I don't read the South Park episode articles much myself but the ones I have seen do meet GNG. Do we need an article for every episode of SpongeBob SquarePants? No we do not and there isn't enough reception to cause the majority of the series episodes to meet GNG. I do agree with you about the bit you quoted IJBall that is taken out of context where people think "aired nationally = Wikipedia article". That needs to be rewritten and clarified because other users could think shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians or The Only Way Is Essex should have articles for each episode when in fact they do not. Individual episode articles should be treated as any other article in my opinion, evaluated on their own merits not because it is one of the handful of shows that has an article for each episode. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 18:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
The standard should not be "gets reviewed by some sites on the web" – the standard should be (as per, for example, WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." (emphasis mine)). Game of Thrones likely easily passes this standard with many of its episodes. I doubt South Park does to the level of pretty much every episode getting its own standalone article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
It likely would be worthwhile to identify those critics or at least examples of them for English-based television (likely meaning the US set, Canadian set, UK set and Aussie set will be different). --Masem (t) 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Multiple episodes from Seinfeld and South Park are WP:PLOTONLY. The Burning (Seinfeld) and Season Finale (South Park) are good examples of why every episode should not have an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
OK looking at those two articles and evaluating them against WP:GNG The Burning (Seinfeld) would fail WP:GNG and is a clear example of WP:PLOTONLY. In its current form it most likely wouldn't survive an AFD. However before nominating it the best thing to do would be to check the almighty Google or the evil Bing to see if the episode does have reliable, significant coverage from secondary sources that can improve the article. Season Finale (South Park) in its current form is mostly WP:PLOTONLY however it has two reliable, secondary sources providing some reception about the episode. The reception does demonstrate the episode was covered. The episode article in this case (given it aired in 2019) could be improved upon by adding viewership information (which most likely is available) and checking other secondary, reliable general places outside of IGN and The A.V. Club for more coverage that often write about South Park episodes. If by chance IGN & The A.V. Club are the only secondary sources and viewership information is unavailable then it would be a candidate for AFD or redirect to the season article. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
FTR, The Burning (Seinfeld) should just be converted to a redirect right now. It's been tagged for 3 years! It's had its chance: nuke it to a redirect! --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Alucard 16, after doing some WP:BEFORE for The Burning, I nominated it. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
If episode articles only contain just a plot and/or reception, generally they fail WP:GNG. — YoungForever(talk) 20:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think broad questions like "Do we need an article for every episode of X" will be answered according to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should have articles on episodes that are discussed in reliable sources. If there is significant coverage of the episode, then it is acceptable to have an article for that episode. Some Dude From North Carolina has nominated three large batches of articles for nomination today, for Simpsons episodes, Game of Thrones episodes and Walking Dead episodes. I expect that they will all be kept, because of the individual variations between coverage of each episode. If you want to clean out the non-notable episodes, that should be considered on an individual basis. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I agree in this case the general question "Should each episode of a popular TV series have its own article?" falls exactly within WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If every episode of a series happens to meet GNG (even barely) there shouldn't be an issue as long as GNG is meet. It seems some forget about the episode coverage task force. Looking at the batch AFD for The Simpson episodes all of these episode articles pass WP:GNG otherwise they wouldn't have escaped the purview of WP:NPP which requires new page patrol reviewers to check the article against WP:GNG and any other associated nobility guidelines we have at en~Wiki. The only article I would take any issue over is I, Carumbus because 4 of the sources out of 10 are Tweets from Al Jean which makes them primary sources. However I would just slap a more sources needed tag on it. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Given current discussions at WT:N there are two ways that the goal I'm seeing here can be achieved. First, to set the stage it would seem that if you look at our subject specific notability guidelines, we have three functions these do 1) set what are criteria for presumed notability for a standalone article 2) set conditions where it is not appropriate to make an article even if the GNG is met, and 3) set what types of sources are good or poor for notability in that area. For this, you are talking a two pronged approach: you can set (1) for episodes to require two reviews from well-established critics (which you should define; eg it sounds like you want your Rolling Stone or NYTimes which do not routine review shows but only focus on critical darlings (Better Call Saul and Watchmen I know personally) but not your IGN or AV Club (which touch everything) as the quality here) as a presumption for notability, which is good. You can also spell out (2) that while you could have a whole host of reviews from weaker sites (The IGNs and AVclubs), that if there is nothing more than those reviews and ratings, that while for any other topic those may be fine for the GNG, there would need to be more coverage in terms of development or legacy to have the episode article to keep the standalone or otherwise these would be merged back to episode lists.
The only only other thing with that is that for shows that are reviewed in low quality sources, you can usually find a RT score, and thus I would try to find a way to include the per-episode RT score into episode lists when shows are merged back. That gives the reader a quick link to check the reviews that were given without us having to give the reviews. --Masem (t) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I can try to dig it up if you want, but I think we've established on a past WPTV discussion (maybe WPFilm) that RT is only worth citing when it lists more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: What would the process be if this project wanted to even consider creating a standalone notability article? Can it be started in the draft space? And where would there need to be notifications that this is being crafted/considered? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
As its more a guideline than an article, it can go to WP space, tagging it with {{proposed}}. When you are happy with it (and to that I mean, the TV project is happy with it), then you can advertize getting to promoted to a full guideline via VPP, CENT, and other reasonable places through an RFC. You don't need to notify the whole of en.wiki as it is drafted, only the version you want to become a guideline. --Masem (t) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this should come down to ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. If an episode is to have its own article, it needs to stand on its own as a notable topic in terms of the WP:GNG, with everything that that entails: significant coverage, reliable secondary sources, independent sources, and not indiscriminate information. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Some Dude From North Carolina, Favre1fan93, Amaury, IJBall, Alucard 16, Masem, Young Forever, Toughpigs, and Bilorv: I've been reading the discussion and didn't find a place to jump in because you all seem to generally agree with each other and with my view that 1. not all episodes, even of very notable shows, should have an article, and 2. there are currently a lot of episode articles that do not pass N. A first step, rather than debate a guideline, could be to bring up all the episode articles (from "List of episodes of X" pages and categories like WP episode coverage) and !vote on which are suitable for their own article. That would probably make the criteria for a guideline clearer, and clean-up episode articles at the same time because then someone could take the no votes to AfD. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • My suggestion is to set the notability guideline for television episodes here first (getting global support for that), *then* come at the articles armed with that guideline which should have consensus. It will be a lot easier then to justify the merges of existing episode articles (eg you are doing up against attitudes against AFDs like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggerfinger (The Walking Dead) that a consensus-based notability guideline will easy help to get around. --Masem (t) 14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I generally agree with this approach. But there are specific (flagrant) instances, right now, like The Burning (Seinfeld), that clearly fail WP:GNG, and should simply be boldly redirected back to the relevant season article or LoE article, or can be taken (individually) to WP:AfD in the meantime... But I do agree that Some Dude From North Carolina's "bulk delete" approach is unlikely to be fruitful, esp. in the absence of a strong and clear 'Notability for television' guideline. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Do keep in mind that some will likely try to claim sources do exist (eg I found a review on that episode at AV Club but not much more) when just going off the GNG. That's fair to do, you're just going to get a lot of pushback if the project isn't behind it. --Masem (t) 15:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
          • To clarify my position, I do not object to every episode in a series having its own episode article. I object to the general notion that a series can't possibly have most or all the episodes as individual articles which is what the initial post was about. The OP did two small bundles and one massive bundle at AFD but didn't elaborate specifically how the episode articles in question failed the existing GNG guidelines OP just said "failed WP: GNG" which is not enough of a justification to nominate so many articles like the OP did in my opinion. I see no problem with every episode of a series having its own article as long as GNG guidelines are meet. I object to things like "must have at least three reviews and one of them being from Rolling Stone" or something like "reviews from IGN and The A.V. Club can't be used to establish significant coverage" because it would place an undue burden at NPP. (Like how can IGN be good for video games articles but not episodes of a television series?) Also before blindly merging or putting an episode article up for AFD the proposer should do a quick search to see if there are more sources available than currently in the article. Since a lot of articles are created as stubs with the intent to be expanded on later a bit of due diligence should be made. I have no objection for clarification of TV notability guidelines that would clarify something like three or more reviews (or something along those lines) are needed to establish significant coverage along with details about the production, viewership information, cultural impact and/or awards (if applicable). I wasn't able to find more sources on The Burning (Seinfeld) so be bold and merge it like IJBall suggested. Episode articles should be reviewed on a case by case basis just like any other article on Wikipedia not in batches simply because a single TV show shouldn't have episode articles for every episode. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
            I think it's appropriate to nominate GNG fails like IJBall's suggestion for AfD. Seinfeld has some landmark episodes that have been discussed a great deal, and many that haven't; 1990s sitcoms didn't get reviews for every single episode. Modern sci-fi/fantasy shows like The Mandalorian and Game of Thrones are much more likely to have every episode discussed at length, and I think the guidelines need to be clarified for those. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Talking about Seinfeld, could someone take a look at this AFD? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)
              • I would have to agree with Rhino131's keep reasoning as the user was able to find a review from The AV Club, an article from The Week that discuss the episode. They also found sources from Uproxx, two interviews (one from Rolling Stone), etc. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
              • I trimmed the plot description and used the links from the deletion discussion to add some meta-discussion. It's now at least an acceptable start-class article of borderline notability. --Slashme (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • For anyone interested, a similar discussion is taking place at Talk:The_Simpsons_(season_32)#Merging_Discussion. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Proposing that merge while this discussion and the AFD is happening is not the way to do this. Let this discussion and the AFD finish and then propose your next steps based on the consensus. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Working draft createdEdit

All, per Masem's suggestion, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is now a working draft proposal for a guideline. Please feel free to edit thoughts there, as well as continue discussion on that talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Still busy these days, but I will try and look at and comment, on this over the next several days. If we go with a separate WP:NTV guideline, I'll have several concerns/areas of interest: "refining" the "aired nationally" statement so it's clear that "aired nationally" doesn't automatically mean "notable!", TV pilots (so that we can hopefully avoid unfortunate AfD decisions like this one), TV episodes (not every episode of even the most popular TV series is going to justify a standalone article, and many series will have no epiosdes that qualify for an article!), TV movies (unlikely to be notable most of the time if released on a U.S. cable channel over the last 20 years), and as Masem suggests – what "level" of reviewing do we want to set as a benchmark (and, FTR, AV Club should be under what ever reviewing level benchmark we come up with!). --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, just as a general concept – how do you know any TV-related topic qualifies for an article? – When there is enough sourcing to properly justify a 'Reception' and a 'Production' section. Too many editors also take the approach that "reviews = notable!!", but if a TV project isn't also getting WP:RS coverage on the 'Production' end, I'm going to suggest that, as a general concept, that topic is probably not robust enough to justify a standalone article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Personally not a fan of ever having YANG (yet another notability guideline). It's almost always better to work down the list of articles that you think fail today's guidelines and either improve them or remove them. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It's actually useful for exactly the reason Masem suggests – there is less likely to be confusion over "what a notable TV program" is, if it's clearly spelled out somewhere how the "WP:GNG test" gets applied to the specific "subject" (TV shows, in this case). --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I find it a bit shocking at how prominent/active (in my opinion) the TV project is, that a standalone guideline page didn't exist since at the moment, all of the project's notability guidelines are contained to a single section at the general media notability article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Just to note that the finalised SNG will need a full RFC as it affects 1000s of articles, including quite old ones ( Bewitched has 100+ episode articles, or it did the last time I looked), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This is an absurd attempt to undermine community consensus (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or the explicit consensus at Talk:The Mandalorian) that these episodes are in fact notable. A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes. Remember per WP:PROPOSALS: “Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.” If you think certain episodes don’t meet the GNG, fine, but you cannot make a more difficult threshold to pass because you don’t like the existing consensus and feel there “shouldn’t” be such articles. -- Calidum 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
    Agree, the stipulations are far too prescriptive and detailed as if it is a manual of style for a featured article. Obviously a production section is preferred but is it really essential? When the article is a fleshed out start class with multiple reliable sources secondary coverage such as national reviews is the absence of a production section really the breaker.The Film Project has defined reviews by national critics as reviews with a large national audience not the reputation of the individual reviewer. There is also the problem that production details often do not come from reliable sources as defined by independence - for example an autobiography of the writer, producer or director, or a source affiliated with the production company. There are GAs that use the dvd documentaries of the film or tv show extensively for the production sections. Overall the qualifications for a episode article as proposed are too onerous in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:Notability (television) is a working draft so you are welcome to edits or adjust anything there. Nothing's been finalized yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    Favre1fan93 says that edits are welcome, so I took them up on the offer. :) I edited the "Television episodes" section to say that episode-specific reviews contribute to notability.
    In the first paragraph, the text said that having reviews "is common to the vast majority of television episodes." This is not true; there are thousands of television episodes that have never been specifically reviewed, especially pre-internet. It also said, "an article composed of just these elements is most likely redundant to the main article." This is also untrue: the main show article does not contain reviews for individual episodes.
    I also changed "While having a significant number of reviews is a step towards considering a television episode notable" to "Having a significant number of reviews contributes to considering a television episode notable", and made it more clear that coverage of production aspects is a suggestion for creating a higher-quality article.
    I'd be interested to know what other people think about these changes. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    That all looks good to me. (On my end, I'm not taking a look at this until probably next week...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    I just created the page to start making edits. It is by no means "closed" or restrictive to anyone for editing. I hope any of my comments regarding that page have not come off that way. Yes, I myself have started making edits there, but I want others to edit this, so it isn't just me, and all can then discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    "A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes." - what part of the proposal as it stands at the moment is more restrictive than the GNG? --Slashme (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    The advice I'm seeing in the draft is the same type of advice that is at WP:NFF for future films - which is where even if good sourcing exists that could potentially meet the GNG, articles on yet-produced films should not be made. Per the current discussion at WT:N on what functions an SNG can do, this appropriate is fully within practice for the proposed TV SNG. (If/when this becomes a guideline, it will be a wholly separate matter of how we'd go about handling the hundreds of episodes that might run afoul of that). --Masem (t) 18:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    Some editors in the above discussion and the one regarding The Mandolorian seem to suggest that reviews alone -- no matter who publishes them or how many reviews there are -- should not establish notability. WP:N suggests no such thing. It's also remember what WP:SNG says about subject notability guidelines. "[Subject notability guidelines] are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline" and "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." -- Calidum 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've added some language that explains that we need to show that to rise beyond IINFO, an article about an episode needs to find sources that discuss the episode at a meta level, not just recount the plot, and need to show that it's had an impact beyond that that any ROTM episode would have. --Slashme (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
    What is a "meta level"? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • As far as reviews go, I do say that reviews grant notability since an outlet is extremely unlikely to review every episode that airs. It's the same premise as with film reviews: there will always be far, far more episodes of any given show than there will be outlets that can or will review them. What I would argue is that rather than argue that reviews shouldn't give notability, the number of reviews needed to establish notability should be raised to say, 3-4. That will eliminate a great many episodes as far as notability goes. Length and in-depth qualities of a review would be harder to concretely nail down, as a good writer can nail down a review in 1-2 paragraphs as long as they're concise and clear.
As far as making the critic nationally known, that's a bit harder to nail down since the criteria is so loose when you consider the reach of the Internet. An article of any type posted on the internet can be seen on a global scale and a review from a well-known, major newspaper that isn't posted online could be seen as non-national. The reason I mention this is that there are multiple countries where Internet coverage is a little harder to gain. South Africa is kind of notorious for this, to the point where one of the keynote speakers at the 2015 WikiConference USA actually went into some detail about how difficult it was for some SA topics to meet notability guidelines because of the lack of web presence of many news outlets. I feel that the best way to establish whether a source is usable is to determine if it's reliable and if the source is in-depth, as otherwise this could have a severe negative impact on non-English or Western media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 04:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is the opposite – anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows. This is why the metric needs to be higher than "I found 3 reviews on the internet = notable!!". The issue is that some editors want to define any coverage as "significant coverage" (as per GNG), but the standard should be higher than that. That is why I like WP:NFO's "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" standard, because that at least makes it clear you can't just take any old "review" website you find on the web and use that to try to get "by" GNG. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Last month, Some Dude From North Carolina nominated seven Game of Thrones episodes and an astonishing eighty-nine Walking Dead episodes for deletion, saying that they failed GNG. I looked at a random episode in each bunch, and found that "Kill the Boy" (Game of Thrones) had reviews from The Atlantic, IGN and Vanity Fair, while "Coda" (Walking Dead) had reviews from the Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly and iO9. I don't think that the Atlantic, Vanity Fair and Entertainment Weekly are run by a group of friends. IJBall, do you have an example of an AfD discussion that ended as Keep because someone in the First World got a group of friends together? — Toughpigs (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • We also need to remember that Wikipedia is meant to cover more than just First World countries, which is why so many of the notability guidelines seem to be so light and easy to pass. Most are written that way because they aren't meant to apply solely to US and other Western-centric topics. They're also meant to help make it easier to have coverage on topics concerning non-First World countries, where coverage may be available but much more difficult to come by. Re-tooling the notability guidelines with First World countries specifically in mind will only have a severely detrimental impact on Wikipedia's coverage of other countries. There's also the issue of coverage of women, minorities, and subcultures that tend to have a dearth of coverage in very mainstream sources. Here are some examples:
    • A South African episode doesn't have South African media coverage that Wikipedia editors can easily discover, however they do have coverage by way of reviews in Western media websites such as iO9 and SlashFilm. The episode was a major release in its area, but the majority of coverage isn't online because the media outlets don't have a major web presence or won't come up in a Western Google search. Google search has a history of not properly crawling the websites of non-Western countries.
    • A director creates an episode for a TV series that touches upon issues that they personally experienced as a transgender individual. The mainstream public generally doesn't cover LGBT shows and episodes the same way they would for say, Game of Thrones, so the coverage is predominantly reviews in places like PinkNews, AfterEllen, and Queerty.
    • An episode of a horror show gets light coverage but gains reviews in places like Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and the Rue Morgue website. The websites are not well known outside of the horror community but are major within the horror fandom.
If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability that will severely impact Wikipedia's ability to cover non-Western and mainstream topics as a whole, as some episodes of shows that are non-Western and/or deal with specific subcultures or marginalized groups may not gain substantial coverage outside of reviews. As a horror fan I can say that shows like TWD and AHS are definitely outliers and do not represent typical coverage for the average horror themed show. The average horror TV show (as well as film and other media) is unlikely to gain substantial coverage, let alone coverage in places Wikipedia sees as reliable.
Now when it comes to the argument of nationally known critics, this is also an area that can negatively impact coverage on Wikipedia. What do we consider nationally known? It can be argued that if something is online it has the potential for global impact, as long as it is discoverable. We can't judge websites targeted towards subcultures and marginalized groups the same way that we would a website targeted towards the mainstream public. While a horror fan would see Bloody Disgusting or Rue Morgue as obviously major media outlets within the horror community, others may dismiss them as too minor when comparing them to even predominantly online outlets like the Hollywood Reporter or Deadline. The same could be argued for coverage in other countries where the newspaper may not be known to Western readers but be considered a big deal in its country - but just not have an online presence or much of one.
Where this concerns me is that while this deals with specific episodes, this argument has been applied to film articles and could also be very easily applied to articles for entire series. By severely limiting what can make an individual episode notable it makes it very easy to similarly limit what makes an entire series notable as there are many series that rely heavily on review/reception coverage to establish notability and its impact on media. While this may seem like a stretch to some, this would also impact coverage on the creative professionals involved in the production of said media, as there have been arguments that if a person's work doesn't have an article that they are by extension not notable either.
Wikipedia has already been severely criticized when it comes to its coverage of marginalized groups and non-Western countries, to the point where academic and scholarly articles have broached the topic. This is also a frequent topic of conversation at Wikipedia conferences as well. My concern here is that many of the arguments for this are looking at very mainstream media like Game of Thrones, South Park, and The Mandalorian, shows that are already household names and aren't considering that tailoring a guideline to restrict episode articles for those shows will in turn have an impact on articles for non-mainstream, non-Western media. I know that this isn't the intent of the guideline by any stretch, but I think that extreme caution needs to be applied when it comes to reducing or removing the impact of reviews towards notability and limiting what can be seen as a reliable source as it impacts more than just these mainstream media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I also want to note that I have actually seen cases where people have argued that horror outlets like Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central are minor and shouldn't count towards notability. It's honestly relatively common, particularly when you have a major outlet that is well respected in the horror community (and has been cited as RS by academic and scholarly sources) but lacks an article on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 07:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Toughpigs: What does Some Dude From North Carolina AfD activities have to do with the point I was trying to make? Some Dude From North Carolina's actions seemed tied to my point as a way to denigrate it. I'm not defending his actions at all, though I agree with his general view that there are far too many "episode" articles on Wikipedia, and that a lot of them obviously fail WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT outright (though I don't agree with him that GoT or TWD were likely to be examples of this!)... As to your question, I can't think of a specific AfD where that has been an issue, but I believe I have seen some WP:AfCs that were probably swayed by what I would consider to be "lesser" (i.e. probably not good enough) use of "sourcing". And I can definitely think of instances where articles weren't taken to AfD because the author had strategically placed just enough (what I consider to be crappy) "sourcing" that no one would want to bother with the fight over it at AfD. I would like our standards to be higher than "Well, I'm not going to bother to take this article to AfD because there's just enough crummy sourcing that I'm going to get too much pushback at AfD to make this worth my time to nominate".
"If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability..." @ReaderofthePack: No one is arguing that "reviews shouldn't count towards notability". What some of us are saying is that we'd like to see more than just reviews to consider a TV topic truly notable (in most cases). Add: Also, I think my point is that not all "reviews" are equal (weight/significance) – I don't have a problem with Dread Central, but I might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes. I don't know if TV programs receive coverage of production aspects in a country like South Africa, but I've got to think there's at least some coverage like that even there (though, perhaps mostly in "trade" magazines?...). Certainly at the U.S./UK/Canada/Australia-level, I think a lot of us would like to see reviews+production info, not just reviews, esp. for TV episode articles, which tend to succumb to WP:ALLPLOT without this balance. And that's true for both TV and film. --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that not all reviews are the same, and that the LA Times and Entertainment Weekly are better than random blogs. But you said, "anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows." If you don't know of any examples where the "group of friends" level of review was used to meet notability, then no, this is not "the current problem." — Toughpigs (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
What else would you call something like A.V. Club? This is the kind of site I'm thinking of. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes - but TV Tropes doesn't publish reviews, or anything. I now consider it to basically be a fan wiki, a world away from A.V. Club (or any other actual publication). Kingsif (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
What you're saying is that reviews shouldn't be enough, however that will effectively end up equating to people not seeing reviews as a source of notability. This could in turn weaken other non-review sources. If say, twenty reviews in all of the major newspapers or subculture websites aren't enough to establish notability then someone could argue that a handful of other types of coverage wouldn't be enough either, particularly if they aren't multiple pages long.
Perhaps what could be a good alternative is to make a guide that would help others learn how to use review type articles more effectively. There are many review articles that discuss elements such as production, themes, and other things that fall outside of the realm of "my opinion is X" (for example, delving into comparisons on the director or writer's work to past works or episodes to comment on character growth). I don't think that many people realize that they can use this information to make an article more than just a review and plot synopsis, not just for film and TV articles, but for most media in general. Not only that, but also help show them what sources in general can be used and which shouldn't. I know that there are some guides out on this, but few that are very user friendly or easily discovered by newbies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 10:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments I agree there are far too many non-notable episode coverages on Wikipedia. Not convinced on a bright line of "20 reviews". One editor seems to think the project may produce "rubbish" and has no authority (no effect) but a large consensus does. The vast majority of episode coverage I have seen fail GNG with no significant coverage, are FANCRUFT with mainly all plot, and I comment those looking into this. Otr500 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

speaking of items, will there be a tv version of {{film draft notice}}? Starzoner (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: If this notability guideline materializes, there will in theory be a "NFF" equivalent that a template could be made to state. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Episode notability suggestionsEdit

While WP:NTV is still being worked out, and given the ever-increasing discussions as more and more episode articles are created, I have some suggestions for criteria. I don't intend this as an RfC, but to see if the ideas have general support before an RfC on adding them to the guidelines.

  1. Principle: an episode should demonstrate notability on its own; that is, the article would pass GNG regardless of the series. Therefore, it should include:
    1. Reliable sources* documenting its production, with more than a passing mention, and
    2. Reliable sources* documenting its reception, with more than a passing mention
    3. If an episode meets GNG, but not all of the NTV criteria, it may still get an article if...
  2. An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable, in line with MOS:TVPRODUCTION and MOS:TVRECEPTION, unless it was unreleased (see 4 & 5)
  3. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series, the show will normally have an article for any of its episodes to be considered notable. The episode is not considered notable enough for its own article if:
    1. It will only duplicate information that is sufficiently DUE at the series article or a relevant season article or a relevant episode list; or
    2. There is no season article or episode list covering the relevant span due to lack of coverage. Extremely notable individual episodes may be exceptions
  4. If the episode does not belong to a commissioned series, i.e. an orphaned pilot or unproduced pilot, it should demonstrate sufficient production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
  5. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series but was unaired, or not completed, it should demonstrate sufficient notability for unproduced works as if it did not belong to any series. This includes production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
  6. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria (see discussion)
  7. Plot, release and cast list are considered trivial and non-notable coverage, as they are all evident and able to be confirmed through an episode's mere existence; however, they should be included in episode articles that are otherwise notable
  8. Being nominated for or winning awards, even Emmys and BAFTAs, does not automatically denote episode notability; these can be covered at a season or series article (see discussion)
  9. Some variation upon saying episodes released as part of a streaming block, with the exception of anthology series, (probably) may not get enough coverage to be independently notable

*Reliable sources refers to those relevant to the TV WikiProject, and independent to the production of the episode. These do not have to be in English.

Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. On the specific topic of TV pilots, I really think we need to clamp down on this area especially, and we should be clear that "significant coverage" actually means more than short-term coverage (and/or sourcing demonstrating a "lasting impact"), so we avoid outcomes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Times (TV pilot) where the "keep" outcome at AfD was truly a travesty. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Changed "popular impact" to "lasting impact" above Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, you want to avoid words like "must". A guideline will instead generally say something like, "Notable television series and series episodes will generally receive significant coverage on both their production aspects and their critical response and/or cultural impact." I'm not saying the wording will be exactly this – but it shouldn't use words like "must", as there will always be exceptions. That's actually why I have a problem with the current first sentence of WP:TVSHOW – saying "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." just isn't clear enough that there are definitely exceptions to this, and "airing nationally" on its own isn't enough. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'm hoping this will be prose-ified before becoming a guideline, as well. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The wording An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable" reads as more to do with article quality than notability. Notability on those points are things like an overly long production period e.g. took three times as long to shoot as a normal episode, had 12 directors, was scheduled for series 3 but didn't surface until series 5 etc, and reception is, it was universally praised/trashed. I don't think notability should be dictated by having a section, that would invite padding. - X201 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@X201: There's a discussion below about what qualifies as suitable production/reception sections. Perhaps if the wording explains that it should have such sections that meet the TV MOS? Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Thanks for all these suggestions. I just want to point out (at least in my view), the text currently being drafted at WP:NTV in regards to television pilots/unaired pilots, and television episodes is more or less "accepted" for what it is, and probably should be used as a basis to expand upon with anything else discussed here. I'm not saying what's at Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series and Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes are the be all end all, just that there's a good foundation there and that text shouldn't be disregarded when considering any further changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh also, anything that is seemingly agreed upon can just be added right to the proposed NTV because it's just in a drafting stage. Based on how it was described to me, once this project/concerned editors agree on something as drafted, then we should have RfCs to get wider input. We aren't there yet, so as I said, we can just make changes right to the proposal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there currently anything agreed upon that could be implemented on the working draft Wikipedia:Notability (television)? — YoungForever(talk) 00:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Season critEdit

There needs to be some version of criteria 5 from WP:BOOKCRIT: The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Some TV shows or franchises are so notable that their entire history is studied. On the other hand, we don't want this to be a license to having every episode of a long-running, studied-in-academic-circles soap opera have individual articles "because WP:TVEPISODECRIT." To prevent "runaway article creation" I would recommend that the criteria be limited to episodes that are part of a season or series in which over half of the members already qualify for and already have articles (not redirects). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion, so the TV season is so historically significant that any of its episode can be considered notable? How about a variation on (added as #6):
  1. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria.
I really agree on that last point; I know a season that would theoretically qualify but I don't think any of its episodes are really notable enough and wouldn't like to see the exception be used to have them created and kept. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, let's break down the process: in terms of articles, it's TV series -> LoE -> season -> episode(s) in order (sometimes the LoE step is skipped). Why do I bring this up? Because some TV series will not qualify for separate "season" articles, and just because a "season" article exists/is justified doesn't mean that individual TV episode articles are justified. So I would be leery of the idea that having a well-studied TV "season" necessarily implies that individual episodes will qualify for standalone articles. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
If most of the episodes are notable, and the season is notable, does that make all of the other episodes to some level notable as default? When David mentioned it, I looked from the reader's perspective; that if a season seems so significant, and I find an article for most of its episodes, I want to read about the rest of them and would find it strange that some seemed randomly excluded. On the other hand, if a series is that well-studied and most of its episodes notable, then episodes that can't procure enough independent notability may very well be not significant at all or it would have at least some coverage. Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Let the coverage dictate it. First, this hypothetical episode will still be covered – in the season article. But I would have a problem with creating an article for an episode like The Burning (Seinfeld) just because "all the other episodes in that season have articles", because "The Burning" doesn't have the requisite production or even "review" level coverage... So, I think I have a problem with the idea that a "well-studied" season in which most of the episodes have standalone articles should "require" the other episodes to get articles even when the coverage doesn't justify it. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I would avoid this. Take, for example, most of the streaming services original programming which release new seasons of a show in one block. Because of that model, the season is clearly notable (eg Stranger Things (season 3)) but none of the individual episodes would be. --Masem (t) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, you've reminded me of streaming blocks. Are episodes released all at once non-notable by default? I feel like that's the case and it would take some good sources to show otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Most of the time, yes, since all the media before and after release focus on the season. You may get individual episode reviews but rarely a single episode in a bloc gets the development or production-type details that a normal broadcast episode may get (comparing how Stranger Things was reported on to how Watchmen or Westworld had been handled). So I'd definitely make sure to account for this. I agree that in a normal case, if 50%+ of a season's episodes are notable, the rest likely are, so given that rarely a streaming bloc episode is notable, this may not be an issue. --Masem (t) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
It probably doesn't need to be noted, then. Unless we want a whole section on streaming at the eventual guideline. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
In regards to this and #9 above, I think the tone of the statement should be lessened, or that number removed all together. We just need to state something like "episodes released in a block may not get the individual coverage to warrant individual articles" because it is still possible for a singular episode in a block (perhaps the first or last) to get significant coverage. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Black Mirror (series 3 to 5) is an exception but anthologies are more likely to receive individual episode attention. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify My original suggestion was NOT to say "you can create a [non-list-article] page about a season" (or "series" for things like the new Doctor Who) but rather "if the series/season qualified under general notability guidelines, whether it had an article or not, and where half or more of the episodes in the series/season already qualify for an article outside of this special "it's part of a notable season/season" exemption, then in order to "complete the set" all other episodes in that season will be "given a pass" on notability, much as otherwise-non-notable works by famous authors do not have to show they are notable in and of themselves." In other words, as with the books by famous authors, and for that matter songs and albums by famous musicians, sometimes "notability IS inherited" WP:NOTINHERITED notwithstanding. As for shows without distinct "seasons" things like "identifiable story arcs or other definable large contiguous sequences of episodes" or "the whole run of the show" can be used to substitute for "season/series." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we understood what you meant, but are not sure if we actually want to "complete the set" or not: from a reader perspective, we surely would, but episodes of a single season (or series) are much more closely connected than books by the same author (some of which may be much older and/or more obscure), so we can reasonably expect that if most of the episodes meet GNG, all of them will, and those that don't are exceptionally not-notable. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose any Deletionists Delight language, as per the ridiculous deletion of the one Seinfeld episode. WP:IAR should certainly apply here, please put the IAR 'Completeness' language back in the criteria, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

AwardsEdit

For those already part of the discussion @IJBall, Masem, and Davidwr:, I've now added #8, about awards. I think this seems an obvious point of notability, but that it might be controversial. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. But also on the flip side, depending on the type of award nomination, by getting such it in theory could be believed that there's enough coverage out there to make an article. But an article shouldn't be created solely because of such nominations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing ideasEdit

So these ideas are just supposed to be standalone distinct ideas we could either get consensus for or against? Mentioned in discussion above (and with precedents at WP:NFO and WP:NBOOK) would be variations upon "X reviews", such as: (a) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources; (b) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources excluding those known for an extremely large number of reviews (IGN, A.V. Club have been given as examples); (c) at least five reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources. I would also add a possibility "winning an award can count towards this threshold" or just an option "winning a major award" that automatically qualifies as notability (in direct contradiction to criterion #8). Also maybe I'm missing it but I'd like a way for supporters of the following claim to have the potential for it to become consensus: "if a season/program has received extremely detailed coverage and the majority of episodes in the season/program are notable then the episode is considered notable" (targeted at people who think it would be an undesirable outcome to have 21 articles and 3 redirects for a season of a show). — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
To the first point, I didn't want to detail what a decent reception section would be. I think we all agree a reception section is needed, but what constitutes a notable reception section is debated. Perhaps a fixed number of reception articles (not necessarily reviews), with an award (that has a Wikipedia article for it/awarding body) counting towards that number, is the way to go. Should that be hashed out before RfC?
And please continue discussing the merits of the extremely detailed coverage part, more than three views on the matter would be great.
Kingsif (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I can tell you what doesn't constitute a "proper" 'Response' section – one that only cites Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic! I would actually like to see it written in the guideline that a "proper" 'Response' section must (and here I would use "must"!) have more than just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and must include proper individual reviews, and that sections consisting of just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can be removed from the article. I come across this fairly often. Right now, MOS:TV doesn't specifically speak to this, but it should. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, what constitutes a "proper" production section should probably also be worked out, but these are more likely needed at MOS:TV, which you mention. And then linked from the notability criteria. I.e. NTV should say we expect "proper" production and reception sections, and see the MOS for what that means. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a much higher bar for notability than is currently being used in AfD discussions. How are you planning on establishing a wider consensus for that meaningful change, outside of a few people talking and drafting on this page? — Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
That's good. AfDs are being closed as keep with reasons like "they said they're looking for sources and it exists so that's good enough for now", but it isn't good enough; there's a lower bar for notability of films than books and even then that's higher than the current acceptable level of TV episodes. There has to be a good reason to not just give the episode routine coverage at a season/show article to justify an individual article - because the more individual articles exist the more it prompts people to create them for every episode ever - but editors who have caught the creation bug want to give that routine coverage in a stubby episode article. The TV project can decide on TV notability criteria, then start an RfC for guideline inclusion (as I mentioned in the first sentence). But even if this discussion is just something referenced in AfDs as the intention of editors who are focusing on TV articles, it's something of a win. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said in the previous discussion: RT/Metacritic are only worth citing when they list more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. If you see a "Reception" that just cites RT and/or Metacritic then replace them with the set of reviews cited that are reliable/good for Wikipedia's purpose. If there are then not enough for notability then it's time for WP:BEFORE and if that fails then AfD or redirect (and for consistency it's best to look at all episode articles for that show/season as well if you can). — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
My problem with using RT/Metacritic as a metric is that lots of non-American shows are not included, or get much less coverage. I think saying that only RT/Metacritic is not a suitable reception section is fine, but we shouldn't say an episode needs X amount on either, because some will never reach that no matter their notability. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you've misunderstood. I don't support any requirement that RT or Metacritic pages even exist for an episode to be notable. My comment above is intended to imply that RT/Metacritic are unrelated to notability—it is only the reviews that they list that could be useful in assessing this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv: Good idea. Should that be at the MOS? (MOS:TVRECEPTION) Kingsif (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Be explicit that if WP:GNG or any other applicable notability criteria is met, it is considered notable even if it fails this criteria due to things like missing production information or missing audience information from its initial airing. This can easily happen if old, previously obscure/forgotten episodes are "re-discovered" and heavily commented on by journalists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Started a line at 1.3 to this effect Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Be explicit that Wikipedia is not obligated to have an article about a TV episode that meets this or any other notability criteria IF there is an existing consensus against it or if the standard practice for that particular TV show is to not have stand-alone episode articles (see also: WP:SPLIT).
Is that really a notability issue? Or just a "don't make an article that we've agreed not to make" issue? Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
It's the latter but I've seen enough arguments over things like this over the years that it's worth putting in any special notability guideline, even if it's just in an appendix-type section that doesn't carry the "weight" of a policy or guideline near the bottom. The controlling guidelines/policies are probably those that address WP:CONSENSUS and other behavioral guidelines, along with a dash of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD for cases where there is no firm consensus against per-episode articles but some indication of a standard practice of not having them for this series/season despite notable examples being available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

ImplementationEdit

@Kingsif: Do you want to synthesis what was discussed here an add it into the working draft of the guideline? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I could try. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Looney Tunes Platinum CollectionEdit

 

The article Looney Tunes Platinum Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article reads like an advertisement or press release, and has only one source for its 10.03-year history.

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.

Proposal: Remove color boxes from Series Overview templateEdit

Last year or longer I made a proposal to replace the color boxes for Template:Series Overview by creating a vertical colored thick border between the season/series number and the total episode count. The consensus was against it because it was hard to distinguish. Since then, I tried to create a new rationale on how to standardize color usage in templates, thinking there could be a better way to show color and still be presented well and not like some amateur. the more I tried to create this potential rationale, the more I realized how unnecessary it is for the series overview template. I even go as far as to say that they end up being a distraction when trying to navigate between seasons. And the shorter series are too short that require them. There's no perfect middle ground length of a series where the color boxes are necessary and improve readability/navigation.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This feels like a non-issue. If there's no color= in the template then there's no colours listed. If there's a consensus to remove colour on an article's talk page then it could be removed anyways. If there is a consensus to change the colors so there's not two shades of the same colour next to each other then that can also be changed. Colour in the template is often coordinated with infobox colours. I believe this helps with identification/navigation and letting readers know they are in the right place more than the season number and default light blue background in Template:Infobox television season do. Heartfox (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Heartfox: I disagree that this is a non-issue. I think this is a real issue, and it's not by circumstances of a few templates but by design. It's a very unprofessional design just by trying to color-code each season/series number while the rest of the rows and columns follow standard coloring. The color boxes are actually a distraction more than an assistance 100% of the time. Look at long-standing series like List of The Simpsons episodes or something more manageable like List of Adventure Time episodes. Let's be honest, they're not as useful in practice, it's just a matter of WP:ILIKEIT.
That's not to say that the series overview can't have any color at all. Just something that fits normal web table standards.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Hearfox. There is no real justification for removing the colors, and there's arguments in favor of keeping them – e.g. "color matching" with the season tables actually makes it easier for at least a segment of our readership who are visual-type learners to follow along from the overview tables to the season tables. I'm also not sure what is meant by "normal web table standards". Finally just because one editor thinks the current presentation looks "unprofessional" does not mean the consensus of editors agrees with that view. Unless someone can show a compelling MOS:ACCESS rationale for why the current "color bars" are "bad" (e.g. for screenreaders), my opinion is that we should keep them. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok but there's virtually no other series with 30+ seasons like The Simpsons that also have season articles and as such use corresponding colours. Maybe this discussion is more pertinent at that article's talk page. For almost all articles it is clearly more of a benefit than a distraction. Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: Color-matching to the corresponding episode list table has not objectively proven to be helpful. It makes sense to have Episode lists color-coded between seasons especially when there are multiple tables packed closely. It's a visual aid, not a visual distraction. But you don't need to distinguish between seasons in a series overview because there's usually only one series overview template and the Season's number serves as the distinguisher. Trying to color code the seasons in the series overview template is like trying to color-code individual episodes in the episode list template. I don't see it being a benefit for navigation in practice, you would have to prove that it helps the average reader say "Let me look for the season Wikipedia ambiguously defines as khaki".
Tables are databases that use rows and columns with certain ones highlighted as the header to help label the preceding information. By its very nature, the table is supposed to visually explain what each row and table is there. The current table makes two columns under the Cell "Season/series", the first one is empty with just a color and another is just the number of the season. I'm deeply sorry if this offends, but it cannot be unstated: If you truly don't understand that this makes Wikipedia appear unprofessional, then perhaps you need to take a class in database design.
Learning styles are theories and leaning on the myth in this day and age. Regardless, your reason for its inclusion doesn't even correspond to the definition of what people believe visual learning means.
@Heartfox: As I already mentioned in my opening statement, the problem exists in every article that chooses to use this template and use the color boxes. It's either too many seasons to even attempt to identify seasons by color or the number of seasons is low enough to have the number distinguish it on its own. The list of Simpsons episodes was only an example. if future examples are brought up by me, know that there are at least dozens of articles that fit the bill.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Likely my final reply on this – You think it's "unprofessional" looking. Pretty nobody else feels this way. One editor really disliking a consensus doesn't overturn that consensus. And, again – you have not provided any real evidence that this is a "problem" that needs to be "solved". Ignoring the points in favor of the current system doesn't change this. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: It's ok if you don't understand why it's unprofessional. It objectively is an unprofessional design for a template to try to distinguish seasons by an arbitrary color in an isolated undefined column. it's not important to me at this moment to be validated by my peers on that. A fact is simply a fact.

But to clarify, I wouldn't be bringing this up if it was optimization for optimization's sake. It is a "problem" that needs to be "solved". The "problem" is that color indicators in the series overview template is a visual distraction, not a visual aid. I'm not saying it's a fun addition that causes no harm. The extra column makes it harder to read the information presented. Because your eyes draw toward the color over written text, it can at times be hard to read the information presented. Anything with +10 Seasons isn't helping. But other times it doesn't provide a real benefit, just an imaginary one. I did have an idea for making alternating background colors for rows similar to template:track listing with the addition of allowing to choose the color of the head and the alternating color range of the seasons. Something proved to help as a visual aid and is beneficial for both smaller series and large series. And MOS:TABLE makes no mention of gradients. So I thought the table can look something like this:

NO LONGER AVAILABLE

It's completely bare-bones. So don't feel limited to the color choices you see there.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Series Overview compromisesEdit

In my opinion, the alternating colors and use of different background colors feel like a step in the wrong direction. The existing correspondence between seasons and color allows for visual identification in addition to adding some nicer aesthetics, while adding color in the above manner is purely for aesthetic reasons. And changing the color behind text (especially when using gradients) is probably not a good idea – it will make it harder to ensure all of the text sufficiently contrasts with the background color to meet accessibility standards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@RunningTiger123: Alternating row color is a common design with databases especially when it comes to long tables. It's why excel makes multiple templates based on alternate row colors. As for gradients, they're just an option to throw in. My goal was to show you we can add visual flair without having to rely on bad table design practices. As much as IJBall and Heartfox want to claim it does help with navigational purposes, the reality is that it's just a tradition that some editors like playing around with visuals and removing it will make these tables more straightforward. Hence WP:ILIKEIT.
But color needs to be used carefully and with purpose and easily understood by readers. For a series overview, the average reader will normally use the number since that is what objectively defines the season from the others. Unless for some reason a series out there is going to just be called "Season blue" or "season red", it makes no sense to use a whole empty column cell just for color. I have spoken to a few people outside of Wikipedia who have a profession in database design. They've shared that sometimes you have to sacrifice optimum readability for what the client may want and figure out a compromise. With that said, I have shared the specific problem in hand and there may be a compromise that allows you to use as much color as you like while making it easier to navigate.
SeasonEpisodesOriginally released
112October 2013
212November 2015
312December 2018
4126January 2020
6February 2022
512June 2022
612March 2023
712December 2023
812December 2049

VS.

Option A (Legend Style)
Season Episodes Aired
   1
12 October 2013
   2
12 November 2015
   3
12 December 2018
   4
6 January 2020
6 February 2022
   5
12 June 2022
   6
12 March 2023
   10
12 December 2023
   100
12 December 2049

OR

Option B (Bookmark/Tabs style)
Season Episodes Aired
1 12 October 2013
2 12 November 2015
3 12 December 2018
4 6 January 2020
6 February 2022
5 12 June 2022
6 12 March 2023
10 12 December 2023
100 12 December 2049
The first option uses Key legend boxes that directly relay to readers the number associated with the color. This gives less room for the average reader to believe the color means something else. The box is also smaller which may theory allow the color to be easier to distinguish. The second option is my personal least favorite, but also the closest to the original design. The season # and empty colored cells no longer have a shared border to separate them, it gives the illusion of a single cell, and as my previous colleague described it, "they look like bookmarks or index sticky notes."Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
To clarify what I meant, it's not that I have an issue with alternating row colors, per se, but rather the fact that those alternating colors can be customized, which could lead to contrast issues between the row colors and the text color. I agree that having a separate column for color is not good formatting – the examples you provided here seem to be a reasonable solution from what I can see at first glance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Of the two examples, I prefer the second, as it's the closest to the current style (and is less "clunky" then the legend boxes). Minor point, the season numbers should not be bolded... If there's consensus for esp. the second example, the next step would be to go to the template talk page and propose this there. It doesn't seem like the second example would be that hard to implement from the current version of the template. --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
They should be bolded as row headers. The current template and module code correctly invokes scopes to do this. I also note that every data table of this type should have a caption per MOS:DTAB. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
No – they would need a 'scope=row' header. But the table should be set to plainrowheaders so that they aren't bolded... But, frankly, that may be a problem with the suggested changes: the 'scope=row' header is supposed to go into the first cell in the row – with the suggestions, that would be the cells with the colors. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
My thoughts on this discussion: whether the design is "professional" or not is irrelevant if it isn't clear, accessible, and useful to readers. sometimes you have to sacrifice optimum readability for what the client may want may be true for database design, but this is not a database, it is a visual chart intended to convey information quickly and help with navigation. Using alternating colours like the original suggestion above is helpful for large data tables when you are trying to follow which information is on which line, etc., but in a (usually) shorter overview table where each row corresponds to a different section you are just being misleading by making it look like there are two or three groupings going on instead of a list of distinct items. With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/article, and if the different colours are too similar then they can be changed to something with better contrast. However, it is important to note that the colours we use in this table are not actually arbitrary and mostly come directly from the promotional material for each season. The different colours are intended by the producers to be associated with different seasons, so you actually aren't far off with the "Season blue" or "season red" comment. As for the two compromise suggestions, I feel like they are both just slightly worse versions of the current style, with the only difference being that the colours are smaller and harder to see (which goes against the whole accessibility thing). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: tables/charts are a form of database. Clear, accessible, and useful to readers is part of being professional, so it is relevant. Creating a professional table is also about making sure there's nothing that hurts navigation/readability. With the current table, I wouldn't say it is "clear", and the "useful" is subjective. This is ok, not everything has to be useful to everyone. But my concern is the way they're implemented makes it harder to navigate between season numbers. Which is what most readers are going to navigate with. The initial alternate row columns was just an example of how to use color.
With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/article This is in theory. It makes sense that someone who has edited the article repeatedly may find it useful, but I'm having a difficult time defending it for first-time readers who are unfamiliar with the series and its structure. Even more so for first-time readers who see the series overview table for the first time. Especially because it is an awkward design just to reflect color is associated with the season #. And sometimes reprints of the season will change the promotional art and its dominant color too, so it's still highly subjective.
The goal wasn't to make the color smaller but to define them separately from the columns and rows of the table. I'm willing to compromise even more. I made "Option B" have 2px instead of 1% so it can be more visible. I compared the two differences to make sure the difference is significant. As for "Option A", it is using template:legend to make the box. If you disagree that is not accessible, you may have to speak with the ones editing the legend template to make the box larger. I personally like the legend style more though.The formatting is directly used to say "this color = X". As for option B, it is designed to give it less precedence over the season number because objectively, we want readers to use the season number to navigate information, while the color should be designed to compliment the navigation. Otherwise, it could be a form of WP:UNDUE Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
But neither option "define[s] them separately", literally the only difference is the colours are smaller than in the current version. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: At first glance, it may look like the only difference is the color is smaller, but it's all about how information is presented. It can be confusing to give the color its own column considering it is the only thing that is objectively not relevant to the article. By creating an undefined column dedicated to color, the table is trying to say that it is equally relevant to the Season #, release dates, and episode count. Hence why I'm making the claim that it can be undue weight. The table should be designed to help navigate between objective information first (season #, episode #, Airdates), while color should be presented as a visual aid.
Option A doesn't create column or row to present the information. It instead uses the legend box to directly tell the reader "this color is associated with the season #". This is why it's my personal favorite. Option B is my least favorite because the column still technically exists, but the lack of a vertical border between them gives the illusion that they're a single cell instead of a separate cell. The color was made smaller (but not inaccessible) to help not distract from the season #. 20:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
But the current version of the template also does not create a separate column, it has the colour and the number both in the season column just like these two options. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: Season is the header but there are still two columns, one for the Season No., and the other for the color that was chosen by Editors. As I mentioned before, color is not vital information in the table, it is supplemental, so it should be altered to not be given the same importance as the other objective information. If we can't move forward with this conversation, maybe it's best you allow others to comment and not focus on denotations. Is there something else you would be willing to discuss? There are other factors such as undue weight that I brought up.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Putting my comments inside a collapsed box doesn't change the fact that all you have done is made the colour column slightly smaller in one option and changed it into a column of little boxes in the other. Either way, it doesn't address any of the original concerns in terms of using the different colours and it is not an improvement over the slightly larger colour column that is currently used. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: I think you misunderstood the original concern seeing as I created the thread. The problem is that the way color is implemented is not as useful for navigation for 1st-time readers and makes it harder to navigate using real information presented in the table.

 

In the image, above you'll see the same table presented before, but now with an example of what it looks like when you actually attempt to navigate it. What should be just going down each row in a single column, the human eye's natural instinct is to focus on the neighboring column on the left because, whether you're color blind or not, it has a different tint/shade than the rest of the table. Basically, it's not comfortable to navigate through if you want to use the season number.
Knowing how much the colors are valued by WP:TV editors, I opted to make a compromise even though I truly believe they don't need to be used to navigate comfortably. The goal of the compromise (created by my colleagues in Excel, converted to CSS by me) is to rely on objective information as the main form of navigation, while still giving the option to navigate using color if one chose to do so. The image above doesn't show Option A's or B's divergent paths, but they have them too. But rather than feeling like your eyes are trailing off to a separate column, they're either embedded together in a single column to keep the diverging path shorter (A), or altered to give the appearance of a single column (B).
And once again, the compromise is also to help make the relationship between color and the rest of the Encyclopedic content clearer to the readers. If color is going to be supplemental for navigation, it should be presented differently from the rest. Otherwise, it's a form of undue weight. Do you care to address that point? I've only mentioned it about three times now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I would much prefer Option B, but if you're after it being a single column, instead of one column for colours and one for the season numbers, I'd like to present the following option, which is visually identical to Option B, but implements the colours using CSS properties for the linked cells rather than using a separate column (i.e. "Season" only spans one column, rather than two).
SeasonEpisodesOriginally released
112October 2013
4186January 2020
6February 2022
6March 2022
5126June 2022
6July 2022
612March 2023
-- Alex_21 TALK 23:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I must be missing something, because the distance between the number 4 and the yellow cell in the current version and Option B is exactly the same, you could just as easily draw a little red line on Option B and we would be back to my previous observation, which is that the only difference is the coloured cells are narrower in the new version. I would understand your reasoning if the entire cell that the season number is in was coloured, because then you would be able to read the number and see it surrounded by the colour. But for all of the examples in the image above you have to read the number and then look slightly to the left to see the colour.
@Alex 21: If there are concerns from an accessibility perspective over the way that the colour is created inside the table then I would agree that using CSS on the season column instead of having a separate cell would be appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: it would be simple if the season numbers weren't bluelinks that will make them inaccessible using the darker colors. The distance is actually greater in Option B, but the goal is to leave less room for drifting to the next column. Option A resolves it differently, option B makes the colors more optional. You're relying on the numbers first, and if you look at the side color, you know it's an active choice to look at them. And because they're no longer defined columns, your eyes wont focus on them as much as before. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
because they're no longer defined columns, your eyes wont focus on them as much as before - I think this is where are confusion is coming from, you think the main difference between the current design and Option B is that the colour is not in a "defined column" anymore. That may be technically true, but for anyone looking at the table who doesn't know that, it will be no different since in both styles it looks like a column of colours. I'm just pointing out that from a visual standpoint, with no knowledge of the technical side (i.e. the people that we are wanting to understand this), the only difference that can be seen between the two is that the column of colours in Option B is narrower. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alex 21: I think that looks just about what I was intending. Thank you.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
The biggest issue with using CSS is that a case in which a split season has different colours per split would not be able to be implemented. For example, with List of Breaking Bad episodes, Season 5A is green, and 5B is grey. Only one border can be applied to the left of the season number cell using CSS, so given the previous example, Season 5 would have to be one colour, therefore not reflecting the episode table differentiation. -- Alex_21 TALK 14:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alex 21 maybe this can work:
:::::::#box {
:::::::  width: 50px;
:::::::  height: 50px;
:::::::  background: linear-gradient(to bottom, red 50%, blue 50%);
:::::::}
Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alex 21: and @Gonnym: We may have to just settle with labeling Split seasons "Season # (part 1/2) or "Season # (pt.1/2)". that might be the easier solution.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Looking at my above transclusion, this is the series overview when presented solely with CSS, instead of a separate HTML column solely for the colours. Split seasons are now supported. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That looks good to me Alex. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: i think it's a fair compromise. The vertical border is still there but for the most part it still advocates less eye-drifting because the column is smaller and not draws too much attention from the rest of the information. I would request bolding the numbers to further assist in navigation.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, no, as per MOS:BOLD. There is already far too much extraneous bolding on Wikipedia. One thing I like about WP:TV is that this WP actually does a decent job at fighting extraneous bolding. And we should absolutely continue to do that. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I just read MOS:BOLD, and it doesn't give a clear guideline for tables. i doubt bolding Season # is going to cause a problem with the rest of the articles. Other Wikiprojects also keep bolding to a minimum too, so your preference that WP:TV minimizes too shouldn't be considered a valid reason. You make it sound like its the end of the world if we bold the season numbers. All we would be doing is making Season # into header.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. We're not going to start backsliding on MOS:BOLD because one editor thinks that we should. A lot of the rest of us have put a lot effort into this fight. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I also would oppose season bolding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@IJBall: I have no qualms with opposing a mild suggestion. But I don't agree that I think we should be "backsliding" On MOS:BOLD. I didn't see anything in the MOS that was against bolding within the table. Especially because tables naturally have headers that auto-bold. I'm going to ask you to be civil. There's no reason to respond in this manner simply because one editor has different ideas to improve Wikipedia.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Series overview compromises: arbitrary breakEdit

So, is there agreement and a consensus to implement the changes to the colouring of the series overview, to convert from a separate HTML column to CSS formatting of the season number column? -- Alex_21 TALK 00:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like there is agreement from Blue Pumpkin Pie and myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to see a demo first – the one uppage is not displaying properly for me, I think. Can someone put an example in a sandbox? --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to see a side by side example. I've also loosely been following, but the new formatting is WP:ACCESS compliant, yes? Also, I'm dropping a line at the talk page of the template of this discussion, since this is a big formatting change if done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Happy to provide examples. See below:
SeasonEpisodesOriginally released
112October 2013
4186January 2020
6February 2022
6March 2022
5126June 2022
6July 2022
612March 2023
SeasonEpisodesOriginally released
112October 2013
4186January 2020
6February 2022
6March 2022
5126June 2022
6July 2022
612March 2023


The left example is what we current use with the live version of the template, whereas the right version is the proposed update. In the left/live version, the "Season" header actually spans two columns, of which one column is just coloured cells empty of any text; as opposed to the right/updated version, the "Season" column is entirely one column, with only CSS applied to the cells with the season links. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The one on the right is not displaying correctly for me. It's not showing a colored" box", but is instead showing a barely visible tiny colored "line" in the middle. I don't know how to show this without inserting a screenshot (can you do this on Talk pages now?...). Anyway, until this is fixed, I can't support a change right now... --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, that's fair given the issues, that's why I proposed it here first to see if it needed debugging. Could you take a screenshot and upload it to a general image upload site (like Pasteboard.co)? -- Alex_21 TALK 05:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Could be a browser issue? Works fine for me on chrome. @Favre1fan93: I believe this change would be better for WP:ACCESS since the current approach has a whole column solely for visual purposes that a screen reader would still need to read as if it was an actual data column. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I do have to comment that this new proposal also doesn't appear on mobile. I don't see any colors in that second table and instead the numbers are off center (slightly more to the left). ETA: pasteboard link to a screenshot from mobile ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 07:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you for that! This gives me something to work while while I debug it and view the test cases through mobile. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@Alex 21: This is what I am seeing: pasteboard link. FTR, I am using Firefox as my primary browser. I haven't checked other browsers, but it shouldn't matter: Firefox is a major browser, and if it doesn't work on Firefox, or on mobile, the proposal shouldn't be adopted until it works everywhere. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware; again, that's why I proposed it here first to see if it needed debugging, instead of implementing it directly. Thank you for the screenshot. -- Alex_21 TALK 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the formatting looks correct on the mobile website via Safari, but I'm also having issues on desktop via Firefox. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I should've included that. My mobile browser is Firefox as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm on Chrome and the examples are appearing as intending I believe. I know there are bugs appearing for others based on device and browser, so as long as that gets sorted out and we know the appearance will be stable across various browsers, I'm fine with making this change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'll keep everyone updated. A lot going on IRL at the moment, but still debugging it manually whenever I get a chance. -- Alex_21 TALK 14:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The issue should now be fixed on Firefox. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, looks to be fixed, based on the samples above. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Great. Then, I'll proceed to make the changes, if there's no further disagreements by tomorrow. -- Alex_21 TALK 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't familar with it before seeing this message, but I'll have to give it a try. Historyday01 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any issues installing it. It's normally pretty easy though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Reality tv show progression and other tables, MOS and WP:ACCESSEdit

This has been an issue brewing on the Survivor pages over the last few weeks but readily applies across most of the competitive reality show pages.

@Lee Vilenski: since around December 2021 had been looking to make Survivor: Borneo a GA and as part of that, saw the tables needed to be revised to comply with MOS and WP:ACCESS in regards to color use. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#GA push. It was clear this was a needed change, as most of these tables heavily used the tribe colors heavily and too often to impart information (which should never be done). Lee along with others has since been proceeding to propagate similar changes these changes to other seasons of Survivors. At first these changes were reverted by IPs, but in the past few weeks we have several registered editors complaining these make the tables unusable and other factors, that the colors were fine, and other arguments.

Really, this goes towards the general issue that was discussed previously here about the standardization of progression for competitive reality shows where it was pointed out that most shows in trying to adopt the colors of the show itself were violating the MOS and ACCESS aspects. (using color for info, using non-HTML5 colors, not picking colors that are colorblind friendly, etc.) But I would even add more that with something like Survivor, there is a level of detail that may be almost to the point of trivality for WP. Yes, constestant lists and elimination orders make sense, but considering how the show is summarized in RSes, voting tables are almost inappropriate. This is an additional issue atop the color and format problems.

Basically, I think we need to readdress not only the color and standardization of these tables (on a per-series basis) but making sure that we're not running effectively fan wikis for these shows. --Masem (t) 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nearly all of the reality TV show pages fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and usually also MOS:ACCESS/MOS:COLOR). That's been clear for years. But it also tends to operate as a walled garden of editors who will cling to their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS no matter what the wider guidelines and policies actually say. I doubt that will change until somebody goes to the Village Pump and gets the wider Wikipedia community to weigh in (probably in an WP:RfC). --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I am familiar with this dynamic, as the TV stations field has personified this. The last three years of work in TVS has been a crash course in learning about the MOS (SMALLFONT, accessibility, scopes, etc. — this was the project that had one of the most inane MOS-related RfCs ever), and that's why I raised the topic in the Borneo GA review. It's become my practice that I review pages for accessibility as well at GA, and I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done around the encyclopedia to foster a culture of accessibility. I'll also note that the exchanges I've had in the GAN environment have been incredibly productive and have led to major leaps in page standard that then get propagated to other pages.
WP:TV is the appropriate first field wider than the Survivor editors, but even though we are one of the largest WikiProjects by activity and content covered, it's also worth it to send things like this one degree of separation beyond where editors with different opinions and specialties can weigh in. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I will add there appears to be some meatpuppetry now involved as there is a reddit thread complaining about this. [1]. --Masem (t) 01:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I have just reviewed Survivor: Cook Islands for GA and I felt we made good progress at that article with table changes, removing one of them altogether and cutting back on the colour usage in the others. However, I see that there has been edit warring at the article since the review passed and many of those changes have now been reverted, which is very concerning. The comments left at Lee Vilenski's talk page (User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2022/May#Please stop ruining the Survivor pages) are quite telling. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
The commented at the Reddit thread towards Lee and other editors working towards MOS complaince is also very telling. Its a strong indication this is heavy on fan cruft though I recognize there's a balance of covering the show as has been summarized by RSes (which it has been). --Masem (t) 13:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
How can that page stay at a GA level if the GA changes were reverted? Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Absolultely correct – if the reality TV show editors revert the changes need to achieve WP:GA status, then the WP:GA status needs to be immediately revoked (I guess a "delisting" procedure would need to be launched?). But the reality TV editors should not be "rewarded" with GA articles that are in fact not GA. There are already enough problems with the WP:GA process IMO – we don't need to add to that by allowing the reality TV show editors to pull fast ones like this. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Thing is, the people wanting the old style tables don't care about the article quality. I do. The fix isn't "well, if you don't want to use correct tables, you can't have a GA", it's "these articles need to meet the MOS". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the voting table, I'm noticing that the "rows" are actually the columns. I'm wondering if screen readers can even read this correctly or if they read this as "day 3 6 8 11 14 ...". Gonnym (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
These charts should all be deleted. They're inaccessible, mobile and screen reader torture, and just plain terrible information communication. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
note - I'm going to try and leave this discussion alone as much as possible, as I think I've made my stance clear (i.e that we should follow the MOS). However, the above discussion happened when I attempted to fix articles for promoting Survivor:The Australian Outback to GA, with a view to update, fix and eventually promote all articles in this field. Borneo was already a GA, but clearly shouldn't have been with the poor table formations, but it did pass almost 10 years ago. My thoughts are that "fans" of these shows (and this includes all reality TV shows, I previously attempted to do work with The Amazing Race) intentionally don't go with the MOS, because it makes the tables easier for quick reference for what they want to do with them - potentially fanworks, what if scenarios, polls and the like. The article in question (and all of the articles) looked like: this previously, which I honestly do not understand how anyone can believe is an encyclopaedic article. The MOS corrections on two tables are realistically meeting people halfway, but I've been treated to personal attacks and even one death threat. If this went to an RfC, ignoring meatpuppets, I know the answer would be just to follow the MOS, but maybe that might be the next step. I'm unlikely to respond here, as I'll just envoke more issues, but drop me a nice talk page message and I'll respond. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree with what was previously said. There is a real issue with reality TV series pages which tend to ignore the MoS quite a lot, but as IJBall noted, the editors in that subject make it hard to fix anything. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I was one of the users who tried to implement these changes across subsequent seasons, and all I got for my effort (besides most of them being reverted), was a warning template slapped on my talk page for “disruptive editing”. I did not get into an edit war on any of the articles beyond a one-time reversion; I figured an administrator could address the repeated subsequent reversions. Personally, I like the look of the new voting table, as well as the contestants table, although in the case of the latter, I do agree that tribe colors could be used since the tribe name is also shown, but perhaps with more muted shades as has been recommended by other users. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Why is this even being brought up again? There was an RfC about this less than a year ago! Just cite that and revert editors if they are subverting the MOS. I do not like this us vs. reality show editors mentality. Please remember to assume good faith and not characterize every editor in a subject as opposed to MOS changes. I think a lot of opposition is because people do not know about the MOS. I made improvements to the accessibility of the contestant table in The Masked Singer (American season 7) in March which did not get reverted by other reality show editors and yesterday I made further improvements. Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I did spend a lot of time messaging people to say, hey, there is a MOS, but it's very clear from personal attacks, the messages at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force and the various talk pages that both registered users and IPs are aware that these tables don't meet MOS, but feel they are "arbitrary rules". Thanks for linking me to that RfC, I don't usually venture out to TV articles a lot, so I didn't know it had been discussed. This experience has been pretty hostile. I shall have a peruse.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
This now does seem to be a daily fight over all of these articles, and whilst some are actively trying to make a version of the tables that do meet the MOS, the vast majority are just endlessly reverting back to the fancruft versions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
After seeing an edit like this at Survivor 41, which not only continued the MOS:ACCESS violations, but also switched the order of the finalists in the jury vote table so that the vote counts didn't match whose name was associated with it ... another problem going back many years, but was fixed in a separate project with the Survivor tables about a year ago ... and given this was an IP ... I'm just feeling tempted to ask for semi-protection of all 42 season articles of the US version of the show. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
It is very frustrating trying to help implement these changes just to have them constantly reverted. Can’t an administrator drop the hammer on some of the editors? Bgsu98 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, I put in a request to have Survivor: Cook Islands protected the other day and was told that there wasn’t enough disruptive activity to justify it. Additionally, Survivor: Borneo has been semi-protected, but that hasn’t stop vandalism as recently as last night. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Related to this, look how wonderfully small the colorful table at Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi 10 was in this reversion. One thing you can't say about this group of editors, they sure know how to keep surprising you. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
So, that is a perfect example. There are (and I've potentially miscounted), 17(!) different colours in that one table alone, three of which aren't explained by the key. Not only is this fancruft of the highest order, it's also completely unreadable. I'd be tempted to put an RfC out there to ban reality television charts from having different colours at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if another RfC is the wrong course of action on this, and if instead somebody should go to ARBCOM, to maybe place a 1RR restriction on all of the reality TV series articles for flagrant violations of the MOS... Basically, what needs to happen is a "Wikipedia-wide body" needs to weigh in on this, and actually do something to rein in the editing and behavior at these articles. But something needs to be done, and I doubt another RfC is going to do it. If somebody knows a current or especially a former member of ARBCOM, it might be worth asking their advice on this issue. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I have already asked the opinion of Barkeep49, but a ping here is suitable given the above comment.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I offered my (private) opinion in regards to your conduct here Lee. I'm reluctant to say anything beyond that precisely because ARBCOM has been invoked and so I feel some obligation to not put myself in a situation where I would need to consider recusal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
We should follow MOS and edit warring should be resolved through blocks and/or page protections. No special form of consensus is needed to enforce accessibility rules. I'm sorry that you've experienced a lot of negativity, Lee Vilenski. I can't say I have much respect for people who speak rudely about the volunteers that write the site they rely on so heavily, without ever helping out or learning the reasons for our practices. And I have had much experience with such people myself. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Television screenshotsEdit

Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 May 1, where I have nominated several television screenshots that fail WP:NFCC#8 for deletion. These include images of characters staring, walking, and talking to one another. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability of television episodesEdit

Recently I went through redirecting a bunch of Heroes (American TV series) episodes because they were composed almost entirely of fancruft. Dream Focus (talk · contribs) undid most of the redirects, saying that reviews from IGN and AV Club made the episodes notable.

My read of WP:NEPISODE is that just a review or two isn't enough. Dream Focus says it is. Is this down to just personal opinion, or is an episode not notable unless there is coverage beyond just a couple of reviews? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 06:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, a few reviews is sufficient to warrant notability – the requirement for any article is that there must be significant coverage in reliable sources, and if there are entire reviews focusing on the episode, that would be "significant coverage" (most episodes don't receive individual reviews). It's also worth noting that WP:NEPISODE is an essay, not an SNG – an RfC to promote it to an SNG last year failed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The discuss is being had at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_television_episodes Dream Focus 15:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It should really depend on the kind of reviews and the source of them - some outlets, and IGN and AV Club are among these, review/recap every episode of popular shows, making their reviews little more than affirmation that the episode exists and the things that happened in it happened in it; i.e. you might as well be citing the episode. When an episode has demonstrated notability, of course include IGN/AV Club reviews and the critical opinions, they're not bad. They're just indiscriminate when it comes to episodes of popular shows. I also think discussion at the notability guidelines has majorly stalled? So you might not get much response there, unless I'm thinking of another discussion. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
No, the quality of reviews matters – this is why WP:NFILM includes "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The "nationally known critics" is to weed out using minor internet-only reviews to try to qualify a minor film for an article. WP:NTV should mirror that, to keep out using garbage like AV Club (which has internet randos reviewing everything). IOW, if it's not getting reviewed in Variety/Entertainment Weekly/LA Times/etc, the review is likely minor and doesn't meaningfully contribute to the "significant coverage in reliable sources" benchmark. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion in one place. Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_television_episodes Dream Focus 04:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Mass deprod of 146 articlesEdit

There are 146 articles PRODded by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) on April 24 [2] that were deprodded by NemesisAT (talk · contribs) on the 30th due to concerns that too many articles were PRODded at once. These articles were deprodded in alphabetical order, including given names and articles, so this list will also be alphabetized. 14 of these articles have been AfD'd by TPH and one by me. I'm not 1000% certain about the fate of the rest. Most of the entries have few or no sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 06:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

146 articles
  1. Beach Patrol
  2. Behind the Bash — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind the Bash
  3. Bobcat's Big Ass Show
  4. Boulevard of Broken Dreams (TV series)
  5. Caught Red Handed
  6. Celebrities Uncensored
  7. Celebrity Rap Superstar
  8. Champions of Champions Elite
  9. Cheat!
  10. Chocolate with Jacques Torres
  11. Cinematech
  12. Confessions of Crime
  13. Daddy's Girls (2009 TV series)
  14. Dial MTV
  15. Disaster Date
  16. Disorder in the Court (TV series)
  17. Downtown Girls
  18. E! Hollywood Hold'em
  19. Engaged and Underage
  20. Eroica Classical Recordings
  21. E!'s Pam: Girl on the Loose!
  22. Extreme Cuisine with Jeff Corwin
  23. Extreme Evidence
  24. Fight for Fame
  25. Filter (TV series)
  26. Filthy Rich: Cattle Drive
  27. Final Fu
  28. FNMTV
  29. Food 911
  30. Food Detectives
  31. Free Stuff
  32. Fresh Gear
  33. Friends of the People
  34. G4's Late Night Peepshow
  35. G4's Training Camp — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G4's Training Camp
  36. Game Makers
  37. Giada's Weekend Getaways
  38. Guinness World Records Gone Wild
  39. Guy Off the Hook
  40. Haunting Evidence
  41. Henry's World — AfD'd by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry's World
  42. High School Stories
  43. Hilary Duff: This Is Now
  44. Hot Pursuit (2006 TV series)
  45. House of DVF
  46. How'd That Get on My Plate?
  47. Human Wrecking Balls
  48. Hurl! — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurl!
  49. I Bet You Will
  50. Icons (TV series)
  51. I Just Want My Pants Back
  52. I'm from Rolling Stone
  53. International Sexy Ladies
  54. It's Effin' Science
  55. I Want a Famous Face
  56. Jack Grace
  57. Jump City: Seattle
  58. Just Jillian
  59. Juvies
  60. Katie & Peter
  61. Kimora: Life in the Fab Lane
  62. Las Vegas Garden of Love
  63. Leave It to Lamas
  64. Life of Ryan
  65. Live Through This (TV series)
  66. Looking for Ms. Locklear
  67. Love Is in the Heir
  68. MadHouse (TV series)
  69. Marianela Pereyra
  70. Married to Rock
  71. Ma's Roadhouse
  72. Midnight Spank — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Spank
  73. Most Daring
  74. Most Shocking
  75. Mrs. Eastwood & Company
  76. MTV Malibu Beach House — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV Malibu Beach House
  77. MTV's Top Pop Group
  78. My Own — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Own
  79. MySpace Road Tour
  80. Newport Harbor: The Real Orange County
  81. News to Me
  82. Nick Cannon Presents: Short Circuitz
  83. Nitro Circus
  84. North Mission Road
  85. Not Just Another Cable News Show
  86. Number 1 Single
  87. Ocean Force
  88. Opening Act
  89. Operation Repo
  90. Overtone (musical group)
  91. Pageant Place
  92. Parco P.I.
  93. Party Line with the Hearty Boys
  94. Party Monsters Cabo
  95. Patrick Clark (host) — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Clark (host)
  96. Paula's Party
  97. Pirate TV (TV series) — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate TV (TV series)
  98. Players (2002 TV program)
  99. Police POV
  100. Pop Fiction (TV series)
  101. Prime News (American TV program)
  102. Pulse (American TV series) — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse (American TV series)
  103. Rachael Ray's Tasty Travels
  104. Revealed with Jules Asner — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revealed with Jules Asner
  105. Rock the Cradle
  106. Scarred (TV series)
  107. School of Hard Knocks (TV series) — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Hard Knocks (TV series)
  108. Scouted
  109. Scratch and Burn
  110. Secret, Strange & True
  111. Snoop Dogg's Father Hood
  112. So Cosmo
  113. Speeders (TV program)
  114. Star Dates
  115. Star Jones (TV series)
  116. Street Fury
  117. Suburban Secrets — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suburban Secrets
  118. Sucker Free
  119. Sunset Tan
  120. Super Adventure Team
  121. Taquita + Kaui
  122. Taradise
  123. Ten Dollar Dinners
  124. That's Tough
  125. The Chelsea Handler Show
  126. The Comment Section
  127. The Daily 10
  128. The Dance Scene
  129. The Gastineau Girls
  130. The Henry Rollins Show
  131. The Investigators (2000 TV series)
  132. The MMO Report
  133. The Phone (American TV series)
  134. The Post Show
  135. The Spin Crowd
  136. This Is How I Made It
  137. Tiger Team (TV series)
  138. T.I.'s Road to Redemption
  139. Torrent (TV series)
  140. Totally Outrageous Behavior — AfD'd by TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Outrageous Behavior
  141. Trick It Out
  142. Turn It Up!
  143. Two-A-Days
  144. Ultimate Recipe Showdown
  145. Valemont
  146. Video Justice
  • Comment I've already been told by @Liz: that this was a bad idea and agreed not to mass prod like this again. I've started my own list at User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup. What other editors want to do here is up to them; some of these may actually be valid deletion targets. I'd like to thank @Cunard: for finding sources in quite a few cases where they otherwise proved elusive, and @Nfitz: for informing me of Proquest. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm a little surprised I Just Want My Pants Back was included in this list. While a random check of the others confirms they are plausible deletion targets, I Just Want My Pants Back looks good enough to clear WP:GNG now, and that's including the fact that it is missing a 'Reception' section, and reviews of the show must surely exist... But a lot of the rest of these are what we discussed earlier: minor non-scripted TV shows on secondary and tertiary cable shows which in most cases aren't going to clear WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment We did discuss this somewhat above at WT:WikiProject Television#Television cleanup. I and others unprodded some more as well, including some from later days. Also some Refunds ... and one I nominated at AFD after deprodding! There's likely some that slipped through and might be worth going to WP:REFUND. Very few seem to be worth completely deleting, though many could be redirects (and merges?) to the originating network. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, this. If you think the episodes aren't notable for articles, please do not vote "delete" but "redirect" since these are perfectly find redirects. Gonnym (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Millennium (miniseries) into Millenium (film series)Edit

Should the Millennium (miniseries) be turned into Millennium (film series)? I understand that the miniseries won awards and that may lead some to consider it notable to stand on its own, but they're the original films only extended and edited into a TV miniseries. Outside of Europe, it has been reformatted and released back into a film trilogy, at least according to IGN. Moving the article might give more room to add more relevant production information and reception of the individual films.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of television episodesEdit

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of television episodes in regards to WP:NTV and WP:NEPISODE in particular. Editors of this project may be interested to participate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Episode table replacementEdit

Hey, discussions regarding replacing Template:episode table with a different table at Inside No. 9 Indagate (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Actual discussion is here – WP:TV members may be interested as this discussion is about mixing use of the standard {{Episode table}}/{{Episode list}} formatting with a non-standard episodes table for different seaons in the same article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 12:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends for deletionEdit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peepoodo & the Super Fuck Friends is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

--Historyday01 (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Fairly OddParents characters disputeEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at talk:List of The Fairly OddParents characters#Vicky is a main AngusW🐶🐶F (barksniff) 15:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if more editors would keep an eye on this for a while – IP editor (operating on at least two IP addresses) is engaging in flagrant personal attacks and is declaring that "once the page is no longer under protection, I’m vowing to continue edit warring". Continued protection, and/or a block of the IP, may be required here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit alone should warrant a block. —El Millo (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"Distributor" in infoboxEdit

The documentation for Infobox television doesn't say a lot about how the |distributor= parameter should be used, just "the names of the original distribution company or companies". Does that mean at the time the show was produced, or does it mean the first time it was distributed to someone other than the original broadcaster? Does "distribution" mean sales to broadcasters or to the general public via video cassette or DVD? I see lots of articles that appear to list the current distributor, or in the case of shows 50 years old it could be a distributor from 20 years ago, or a present-day company that bought out the distributor of 20 years ago. Could we have some clearer guidance in the infobox documentation?  Dr Greg  talk  18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is easier with theatrical films as the distributor is the company that gets it to the theaters. Original in that case is obviously for the original theatrical release and the infobox displays the name of that company that did that at the time. It should never be changed from that even if the company changes names or sells the rights. For television series and films, the broadcast network replaces the theater and the original distributor should be whatever company gets it to the network. Things shouldn't go in the infobox unless sourced in the article so if this isn't sourced, shouldn't be listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure that's correct – back in the "old days" of television, I always understood "distributor" to mean who (originally) distributed the show into first-run syndication and internationally... But the 'distributor' parameter has become such a major hassle as, for one thing, they generally don't appear in the show's credits, that I would probably support just removing the parameter from {{Infobox television}}. At the least, removal merits a discussion. (And, if such a discussion ever takes place, somebody please ping me!) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there any connection between copyright owner and distributor? End credits nearly always include a copyright notice.  Dr Greg  talk  19:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Not directly. Disney Enterprises, Inc. is the copyright holder for all Disney intellectual property, for example, and basically that is all it does. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

UK ratings through BARBEdit

For anyone who's familiar with sourcing UK viewer ratings through BARB, do they no longer provide 28-day viewer ratings? This is their primary page for ratings data, but I don't seem to be able to find the relevant 28-day option anymore. -- Alex_21 TALK 01:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wire at FAREdit

I have nominated The Wire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Simpsons episodesEdit

Not sure if this is the right place for this though it might be as good as any other possible pages to talk about.

Recently, there has been IP addresses which keep on changing some info of the Simpsons related articles such as the production code and directors which I usually revert when I see these changes. Hopefully now more of you would be aware of that disruption as time goes by, especially as one IP address range is currently blocked. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)