Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
This 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.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television:

To do list:
Major discussions/events:
Incubators:

Contents

Merger Proposal : Merge Endemol into Endemol ShineEdit

I would like to make a proposal in merging two pages together. This would mean merging the Endemol wiki page into the Endemol Shine Group wiki page. These are the pages I am referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol_Shine_Group

The reason doing a merger proposal for these two pages makes logical sense because Endemol merged with Shine Group in 2015. You can already see on the description for Endemol Shine Group that it has incorporated this information, Endemol is incorporate in the History part of the Endemol Shine Group.

I think this is quite important because Endemol Shine make very popular shows globally such as Peaky Blinders and Black Mirror. However, if you were to type Endemol Shine into google, you see that Endemol comes up first. I think this is so confusing to people who are trying to understand the diference between endemol and endemol shine group. When I type it into google endemol is the first thing that seems to come up.

For this reason , I think we should merge the two so that it reflects the merger.

Swapping of directed and written by columnsEdit

For pretty much any series, we see the writer(s) listed first followed by the director(s); as such, I'm wondering if we should follow that order here as well and swap things in the template. If this change were to go through, we wouldn't even need to go through and update articles, we would just update the template. The code in the articles would show directed by -> written by, but the display would show written by -> directed by. I can confirm this as I tried playing around with things a while ago by placing the "director" and "DirectedBy" parameters after the "writer" and "WrittenBy" parameters, and the output still showed directed by -> written by. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I'm neither for or against this, kinda neutral. I can see the benefits of it for shows that do list the writer first, but do we know for certain if writers are always listed first, or at least a majority? Who is more "important", for want of a better word, to an episode? (Correct in that order of parameters in the code doesn't matter, but it does look nicer; I created {{subst:User:Alex 21/subst-list}} to help with that. All that would need updating is two lines in Module:Episode table and Module:Episode list.) -- /Alex/21 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No dog in this at all, but I kinda suspect that the director is listed last in the opening credits to *enhance* their prominence, i.e. credits are listed in *ascending* order of importance. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this change. Exaclty what Chaswmsday said is correct; the director is last because they are in fact the most important credited, hence they get credit just before the episode "officially" begins. Note this is actually the same for the ordering of producers, with usually the more important and often show creators being the last credited producers in the opening credits. - Brojam (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the directors are still listed last and that should be reflected in the columns. It should be order based, not importance based. (And besides that, that seems to be an original research statement, anyway. What supports that directors are the most important?) If the starring cast of a series is D, C, B, A, that is the order we display them as. Often times the starring cast who is credited last gets paid the most, but even if A gets paid the most, D is still listed first because their name comes up first. And producers are no different. We list them in the order they are displayed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
We give more importance to the executive producers over the co-producers, producers, supervising producers, and co-executive producers, with in fact, all but one not even being listed in articles; yet all of those producers are credited before the EPs. - Brojam (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Co-producers and supervising producers are not producers. Likewise, co-executive producers are not executive producers. None of those are even listed since they're of minor importance—we only list producers and executive producers. Just like we don't list co-stars because they are background characters, unlike guest stars. And executive producers are already listed before the producers in series' credits, so if we're going to use that earlier argument that those listed toward the end are of more importance than those toward the beginning, that would make producers more important than executive producers. The logic is flawed, and stating that a credit like directed by is more important than a credit like written by simply because it is listed last is, again, pure WP:OR. Refer back to my starring cast example. Are we going to start allowing people to order cast lists based on who their favorites are? No. It's the same principle here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Teleplay by and story by orderEdit

Answered. Possible by custom parameters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similarly, I see that for the teleplay stuff, it's shown as teleplay by -> story by, so perhaps Template:StoryTeleplay should be Template:TeleplayStory, with teleplay being on the top and story being on the bottom. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The redirect already exists, so if you wish to use it as {{TeleplayStory}}, you're already more than welcome to. -- /Alex/21 22:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I just tested and "teleplay by" is still showing up on the bottom instead of the top. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
That's because all it is is a redirect, the order doesn't change. I don't see the need to match the order of the credits directly, as long as we match the credits themselves exactly. -- /Alex/21 05:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Then it was pointless to post that as that's not what I was asking about. I clearly specified I was asking about the order of the teleplay and story display in my OP earlier. And yes, order does matter. That would be like saying starring/main cast order doesn't matter as long as we get the names right. No. If the credits have John Smith -> David Anderson -> Tom Rogers, we put John Smith -> David Anderson -> Tom Rogers. Putting Tom Rogers -> David Anderson -> John Smith or David Anderson -> John Smith -> Tom Rogers or whatever would be incorrect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is a consensus to update this, then certainly. You can always use the extra label parameters for now. -- /Alex/21 05:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

Template updated. -- /Alex/21 11:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Episodic Drama winnersEdit

At Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Episodic Drama, the infobox says that the award is held by a writer for a series. However, I believe a writer wins for an episode. The confusion extends to the templates ({{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 1980s}}, {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 1990s}}, {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 2000s}}, and {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 2010s}}) that have been the subject of great warring. TVBuff90 does not think the templates should refer to a winning writer and there is an IP 98.234.123.100 that has been warring with him on this issue. Today, Rockstone35 removed writers from the templates in an attempt to stop disruptive behavior, which I don't think was really accurate. Do writers win for an episode and if so do winning writers belong on the templates?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you asked, yes they do. My apologies for my disruptive behavior. --TVBuff90 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure exactly what the issue here. The award in question, Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Episodic Drama, is given to a writer or writers that wrote a specific episode of a drama series. The series is not the winner, nor is the episode, but the writers themselves. The navigation template that is placed on articles, should only be placed on the writers articles, as they are the winners of the awards. This is not different than actor, directing or music awards. --Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think the writer and the episode are encyclopedic content for the template.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
      • A navbox is not encyclopedia content, for that you have the actual article. A navbox template should be placed on articles it links to, and this one should definitely not be placed on the series articles. This is similar to all other film/tv award templates which don't place the Best Director or Best Actor templates on the Film or TV series article pages. Please look at other templates and see how they work. --Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In a related issue, now {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicComedyScreenplay 2010s}} seems to be at issue as the legendary 2million edit Koavf has decided to revert. My guess is mistaken vandalism reversion, but lets make sure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't know that the latest revert was vandalism as much as it was just a revert without any explanation, so I can't exactly agree with IP's rationale. This version of the template includes entries that have no links in them for any further info (e.g. "Tracy Poust & Jon Kinnally for "Rosario's Quinceañera" (2017)"), so I have inserted some kind of context by including the name of the series or linking an individual episode. This makes the navbox actually useful for navigating. If I'm off track, please let me know. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of The Vampire Diaries episode pagesEdit

It seems to be my belief that most of the pages for individual episodes of The Vampire Diaries do not meet notability or source guidelines. They are almost completely plot summaries with a song list and some reviews. Any opinions from someone who has dealt with this before? I would suggest redirecting them into the season pages. DLManiac (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the articles for individual episodes of most TV series do not meet notability requirements!!... Unfortunately, though, they're still hard to delete because there will always be some editors that are basically "a single episode-review source = notable!" --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Aren't things like that handled on a case by case basis when the page BARELY meets the requirements to exist but could arguably be redirected if a strong enough case was presented?. Esuka (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You can always try to convert undersourced examples of these to redirects, and see if it "sticks". But if the conversion to a redirect is reverted, the only option then is WP:AfD... --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The WB for deletionEdit

 

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

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

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

Proposed deletion of Discovery Channel MexicoEdit

 

The article Discovery Channel Mexico has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as being unreferenced since 2008 and for notability/context since 2017. Article is nothing more than a single sentence and a navigation box. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG; so, if deletion is not appropriate, then a redirect to another article may be.

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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on TRT World on the reliable sources noticeboardEdit

There is a request for comment on the reliability of TRT World on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: TRT World. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC on disambiguation of TV articlesEdit

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?. Additional participation is welcomed. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

common name vs formal nameEdit

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:HYPOCORISM regaring the applicability of MOS:HYPOCORISM as the rsult of this edit where "Jackie" (the character's on-screen name) was restored after it had been removed. Since this has the potential to affect many character articles it's a discussion in which this project should participate. --AussieLegend () 00:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Ian Alexander (actor) → Ian AlexanderEdit

There is an RM discussion on a page that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Talk:Ian Alexander (actor)

Thanks for your input. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Input still needed on this. Thanks! WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!Edit

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboardEdit

There is a discussion on the reliability of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § How would guys consider TCM (Turner Classic Movies) especially their TCMDb section for sources and citations. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

agenda pushingEdit

There needs to be something done about this Gay agenda pushing regarding Talk:Lance (Voltron) and Talk:Keith (Voltron). There are no third person sources to support it something needs to be done.Dwanyewest (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Minus the fact that there's no 'gay agenda', you are free to change it yourself if you don't feel there's enough evidence to support it. I would edit Lance's but I simply don't know enough about the show to feel like I can (Keith's was a bit easier because it was pure speculation, but I don't know if Lance's description's happened or not, and don just want to make assumptions). QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Edits like these [1] without being sourced appear disruptive. "Fan shipping" has no place on any Wikipedia television page for character descriptions. I can actually see your point after reviewing a fair amount of the IP edits. The thing is though is that I don't watch the show, so if these edits are unsourced fan nonsense I would suggest you request that the page be protected. Esuka (talk)

Is there automatic article eligibility for regular cast members of primetime network shows?Edit

The recent deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Numkena, who was the 2nd-billed cast regular of the 26-episode CBS series Brave Eagle may elicit comments as to the general nature of such deletions and a specific question regarding a possible recreation of his entry. If there are BLP concerns, the lead sentence may be reduced to, "XXXXXX was an American actor", with a list of credits and a couple of inline cites to general references such as Tim Brooks/Earle Marsh, Alex McNeil or Vincent Terrace, plus a couple of "External links" to IMDb, TVGuide, etc until someone expands it. —Roman Spinner (talkcontribs) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why? – If the subject was main cast of just a single (short-lived) TV series, then they don't meet WP:NACTOR and don't merit a standalone article. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studioEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studio. — YoungForever(talk) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of images in Template:Infobox Television episodeEdit

I have recently become concerned about the use of screenshots in {{Infobox Television episode}}, or similar templates such as {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}. This is because nearly all of these screenshots used a non-free, and I believe that in most cases the images fail WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.), a policy with legal considerations. Omitting many of these screenshots would not, I think, inhibit anyone's understanding of the infomation conveyed on the article. I understand there are series, such as The Simpsons, who have reduced the use of these images, while other series, such as Game of Thrones use screenshots on the vast majority of their episode articles. So I'm here to try to start a discussions about whether the use of these images is O.K. from a legal perspective and whether there is a good purpose to these images for them to stay. --TedEdwards 21:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Images for an episode infobox should only be used if 1) there is an official title card or similar promotional poster (as some of the previous Dr Who seasons had used) for the episode. Title card/poster takes any question of how the production or broadcaster wants the episode to be branded (per WP:NFCI#1), or 2) that the specific screencap used is the subject of discussion from secondary sources - such as a key moment in the episode, or where there's some production aspect that the image helps explain (eg one example I consider fair is the image on Worlds Apart (Fringe) which id'd as a key moment of the episode by critics and praised in the performance, despite the image just being talking heads). If no image cannot immediately either of those cases, the infobox should be left empty. --Masem (t) 23:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Looking at your reply, I'm wondering if you agree with me that there is a problem over non-free images. Your two criteria seem good, but do you think that too many images in episode infoboxes do not meet your two criteria (and therefore WP:NFCC)? --TedEdwards 00:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I absolutely agree. Too many editors pick a random interesting screenshot for the infobox. Many MANY shows are just talking heads 90% of the time, and such images aren't helpful. There has to be valid rhyme and reason under NFCC#8 to include a infobox image. --Masem (t) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Various television portals up for deletionEdit

Nomination of Portal:Battlestar Galactica for deletionEdit

 

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The X-Files for deletionEdit

 

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

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

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

InterswitchSPAKEdit

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at InterswitchSPAK and assessing it? It went through AfC so it probably meets WP:TVSHOW, but this edit here might indicate some COI or even undisclosed paid editing is taking place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 23#Template:Big Brother sidebar Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 23#Template:Big Brother sidebar . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Theatrical adaptation, TV adaptationEdit

I feel sure that editors have used [[theatrical adaptation]] and [[TV adaptation]] in the parallel senses of literary adaptation for the stage and for the TV screen. In fact, however, TV/television adaptation are two redirects to adaptation of television material for the cinema, or TV-to-film.
Moments ago I posted a longer notice of the problem at Talk:Literary adaptation#Theatrical adaptation, TV adaptation.
(I post this short one also at WP:LIT, WP:CHILDLIT). --P64 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Television".