Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Latest comment: 5 days ago by Alex 21 in topic New script: moving references to {reflist}
WikiProject iconTelevision 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Help with After Dark (TV programme) ? Edit

Might I ask for some practical help? Perhaps from UK-based editors with knowledge of British television? I would like to collaborate with an experienced Wikipedia editor on an article about an interesting tv show.

To explain why I am asking for help rather than just editing, I have a COI (as detailed on my User page since I started editing over 15 years ago): User:AnOpenMedium

To be clear, I am not paid to do any kind of social media for the company (I am basically now business affairs, copyrights, licences, contracts, that sort of thing, as well as looking after the company archive). My Wikipedia editing has always taken the form of adding material from our archives in my spare time. Over the years this has expanded a little as I learned how to get permission for, and then to add, photos from the archives.

Of course I have made missteps along the way, misunderstood things, withdrawn ideas I have proposed, but my time with Wikipedia has been relatively peaceful. And of course some of my contributions are no doubt more useful than others (but I don’t think it is my place to make editorial judgements, as per my COI).

The results of my editing have left some of the articles I have contributed to peppered with extracts from books, journal articles, newspaper pieces and so on. I took the view - and hope my User page makes this clear - that my COI does not allow me to write sections of articles in my own words, but it seems legitimate to add the words of others as quotations. These quotations can then be considered by other editors (to use as they are, write summaries if that is better, and so on). My archival sources are probably better than can be found by the average user of the internet or a library: I am somewhat over-informed about the tv programmes our company has made so know where useful material is to be found.

Coming to why I am requesting help, a few weeks ago an article to which I have contributed, and which has been more or less stable for more than ten years, has been dramatically reduced in length: After_Dark_(TV_programme)

The bulk of this article has now gone - over 126,000 bytes removed – along with much true, useful, verifiable and properly sourced information, including everything about individual episodes, as well as over 30 images of the many celebrities who made guest appearances on the series. By comparison, when I look at other good articles about specific tv shows, they tend to resemble the inclusive approach I was following, rather than the extreme minimalism/exclusion approach just taken.

I had hoped that the many quotations I presented would be a useful resource for further editing. So is there perhaps someone in this group who might like to take a look at this and then work on moving things forward?

Very happy to help but I am conscious of being constrained by virtue of my COI. Apologies if I don’t always react quickly but working on Wikipedia is necessarily something I have to fit in around my paid work.

AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For anyone looking for context, it looks like Hippo43 has significantly trimmed the article to remove excessive quotations, as the edit summaries note. Looking at the last version before Hippo43's edits (link), I support the changes; the majority of the article was paragraph-long direct quotes.
AnOpenMedium: I would suggest reviewing WP:QUOTE and especially WP:OVERQUOTING. Aside from being poor writing style, excessive quotes might also pose copyright issues (see WP:COPYQUOTE). If you want to add some of the removed content back, you should summarize only the most relevant details (with a few brief direct quotes if specific wording is particularly relevant). Better citations would also help; instead of attributing text to only, say, "The Listener, 21 December 1989", include the article, author, and page number as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! My concern is that my editing in that way could be problematic because of my role with the organization (see my WP:COI as detailed on User:AnOpenMedium).
I'm really hoping somebody might want to work with me or look at the material themselves to see what is useful. AnOpenMedium (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shutdown of ShowBuzz Edit

The website announced that it will cease operations due to declining ratings of TV shows. With this website gone, are there any other reliable alternatives for viewership ratings?

Shutdown Announcement: BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, we just need to move on from providing linear ratings, it's now becoming oudated information, which is exactly what Showbuzz is saying in their announcement you linked. That's not to say we should start removing data or remove the parameter entirely, past records should definitely be kept for historical data, but I see no requirement to keep providing the information, especially when we've already started removing ratings tables when there's almost zero notable information provided. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If linear ratings are becoming outdated, what is the next big thing for viewership data then? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TV Series Finale seems to be pretty reliable for ratings info, at least for live ratings (the ones that typically get listed in episode tables). RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, this past discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#U.S. TV ratings sources said otherwise about TV Series Finale. — YoungForever(talk) 00:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Programming Insider and Associated Press are reliable sources to use for U.S. TV ratings. — YoungForever(talk) 00:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:KDLT-TV § Footnote or prose text? Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:KDLT-TV § Footnote or prose text?. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice regarding 2 RfCs at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series Edit

This is a notice that 2 RfCs are currently happening at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series.

  1. The first is at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Request for Comment: “I Am Groot” as a television series in regards to how, if at all, the I Am Groot shorts should be represented on the page.
  2. The second is at Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series#Request for Comment: Adventure Into Fear in regards to how the Adventure into Fear (franchise) should be represented on the page.

Additional editors in both discussions would be highly appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be hugely appreciated. We have a dire lack of outside voices that can objectively assess. That's what we need for a long-running content dispute. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Adventure into Fear one is especially lacking anybody who has not already been involved in this discussion. ChimaFan12 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We still need more people, particularly at Adventure into Fear. ChimaFan12 (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge Edit

There is a merge under discussion at Talk:Pictionary_(2022_game_show)#Merge. Please feel free to comment there. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben Driebergen nominated for deletion Edit

The Ben Driebergen article is nominated for deletion. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Driebergen. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paulie Calafiore Edit

New stub: Paulie Calafiore. Has been tagged for notability if others want to weigh in or help expand. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've requested a filmography table at Talk:Paulie Calafiore, if anyone's able to help. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts on this draft? Edit

After the creation of 2023 CW affiliation realignment, I thought a broader subject might make more sense. Is it too broad? It's Draft:2023 sports related U.S. television changes. Thanks. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfDs for three episodes of Steven Universe Edit

Recently, a user has nominated the articles The Answer (Steven Universe), Cry for Help (Steven Universe), and Mindful Education, claiming they are nominating it per WP:BRV, "especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of WP:G5." I would like these discussions to get more attention, so they don't fall under the radar. To leave your comment, please go to:

These deletion discussions may be of interest to members of this project. Historyday01 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeremy Collins nominated for deletion Edit

I have nominated the article Jeremy Collins for deletion. You're welcome to input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Collins. George Ho (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NCIS: Sydney: Countries for dates and viewers Edit

There seems to be a disagreement betwene myself and Happily888 at NCIS: Sydney as to what countries should be included for airdates and viewers in the {{Episode table}}. The series is an Australian spin-off from an American franchise; I believe only the Australian viewers and dates should be included (table), whereas Happily888 believes it should be both countries for both columns (table). Thoughts? -- Alex_21 TALK 12:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is tricky on the surface. While there are ties to the American-based franchise, this appears to be wholly Australian from a production standpoint, and CBS licensing the series for broadcast in America. As with any other series in a similar situation, only the country of origin should be listed, so Alex's intentions were correct - only the Australia release date in the table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The American series should be included per MOS:TVAUDIENCE, which states that:

Ratings should only be included from the program's country of origin or where it debuts, unless viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced.

This series will have very high significance and notability for its American broadcast; it is already part of an established American franchise and will be broadcast in a primetime timeslot. I think that it is quite unlikely that a comparable similar situation to this exists, clearly in this case the American broadcast information is just a relevant and highly notable as the Australian information, for reception it doesn't particularly matter where the production location is. Happily888 (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a spin-off from an American franchise, yes, but it is not in any format an American production; in concerns for the US, it will be an imported international production. All and any US ratings can easily be included in a template such as {{Television episode ratings}} in the "International broadcast", which already exists for this purpose. Is there any reason as to why it should be included in the episode table, and can you show any other stable articles where this such situation exists? -- Alex_21 TALK 04:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is unlikely that there is many or any other article where this situation exists, because it is extremely rare or unlikely that a franchise would have a spin-off set in and produced in another country, which is notable in both the country of origin and the original franchises' origin. That the series is not an American production doesn't matter as it is not a prerequisite for ascertaining whether it is particularly notable for another territory and therefore being able to be included. I can't see any benefit of adding information to {{Television episode ratings}} as opposed to {{Episode table}}, the same information would still be provided in both tables and MOS never specifically states that any particular table must be used. Additionally, it would mean the unnecessary duplication of information across both tables, where information for both series could and should be included in just one. Happily888 (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly: the MOS never specifically states that any particular table must be used, so it is best to stick to standard practice in such a unique case, instead of making one separate article different to every other article covered by the WikiProject Television. That is, the country of origin in the episode table, and any further countries in their own respective section. The fact that the series will be broadcast in a primetime timeslot in the US is also irrelevant, many series receive this. Do you have any sources stating that the viewing data will be particularly notable to the continued production of the series? Added: there would be no such duplication, and would spread the data more appropriately instead of attempting to cram too much irrelevant data into one space. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no 'standard practice' for which particular table template a series must use, the MOS guideline just says that a season article "could use" {{Television episode ratings}} although this is not exhaustive and there are multiple templates which can be used. Also, particularly notable does not refer necessarily to "continued production of the series", in fact from the section it is in, it more likely refers to its relevance and importance to the other territory and the large amount of reception from there. Happily888 (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, other than the franchise name and potential future reception, there's nothing else tying the show to America? -- Alex_21 TALK 07:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Happily888: MOS:TVAUDIENCE is in regards to viewership, not episodes table, so while it can be (and probably is) notable to mention the viewership of its US broadcasts, those airdates are irrelevant for the actual episode table since it is wholly an Australian production. Perhaps maybe the closest past example I can think of would be Law & Order: UK, and its episode tables only include the UK airdates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the reason why Law and Order: UK doesn't have US ratings is because it is not comparable: the series wasn't particularly notable for the US, it wasn't broadcast on a major network and it got poor ratings: The premiere episode which aired on 12 August 2009, only rated 775,000 viewers, and was outside the top 15 rated shows for that period.[1] If the series was broadcast on a major network in primetime, which it wasn't, it would have been comparable and would have been included in tables. Happily888 (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no guideline or part of the MoS that supports the concept of including international ratings in an episode table solely on how well it did in that country or where/when it aired in that country. There's also evidently more support to remove the columns as I initially suggested; I've seen no further support to include them. -- Alex_21 TALK 02:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Higher visibility, viewership and amount of reception coverage do support that viewership is particularly notable in another territory and can be reliably sourced. Happily888 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And yet, there is no American reception nor viewership for a series that has not even premiered yet, so none of those currently stand as valid reasons. -- Alex_21 TALK 09:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Much of Happily's reasoning comes down to WP:CRYSTALBALL, unfortunately, and therefore doesn't really hold up. oknazevad (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like we're talking about two different things. American release dates and viewership should not be included in the episodes table. The American viewership maybe can be ultimately included in a reception section, but as noted, it's too early to tell if it will be notable to do so given it hasn't premiered yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see where oknazevad is coming from, Happily is saying we should include them given the prominence of those details, but given that it hasn't even aired yet and as such there is no actual prominence, this would constitute CRYSTALBALL. Given the support to remove them, I've gone ahead and done so. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support removing U.S. air dates and viewership as the TV series is an Australian TV series. Also, it is airing in Australia first. — YoungForever(talk) 20:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Seven - Daily Ratings Report[permanent dead link], eNews, 13 August 2009.

Ryan Murphy collaborators list article draft Edit

Hi all, a few years ago I noticed that the Ryan Murphy (producer)#Frequent collaborators section is basically impossible to use. I copied the table over to Draft:List of frequent collaborators of Ryan Murphy, made some sub-tables, tried to add some prose about the collaborators as well as about the typical style of Murphy shows. It still needs a lot of work, as well as updating with recent projects. Some of the heftier tables could be removed, and there probably doesn't need to be prose about every actor/co-producer, just the really notable ones. Seeing the updates to articles about Murphy TV shows, I imagine there's a lot of fans of his work who would be interested in working on this draft, so I wanted to bring it to public attention. Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New script: moving references to {reflist} Edit

I'm aware of how many television articles covered under WP:TV list all of their declared references under {{reflist}}, to tidy the article and be able to see the readable prose more easily while editing. For this purpose, I've created a new script to do this automatically; here is a live edit using the script. -- Alex_21 TALK 04:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erik, I just saw your edit to Percy Jackson and the Olympians (TV series). Please note that per WP:CITEVAR, an article should not be changed unilaterally to or from LDRs unless there is explicit consensus to do so on the talk page (or implicit consensus among a specific set of articles). This should be noted on the script's documentation, as well as when editors attempt to use the script. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, FYI, User:PleaseStand/References segregator and User:Kaniivel/Reference Organizer have similar functions, though I don't know the specifics. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for citing this guideline; if it had been a policy that the script violated, I would take action for it, and if it were forbidden, then I would assume that help pages would not exist on how to do exactly that. I find moving references to the reference list tidies the article for the regular reader, and will leave the script usage up to editor discretion. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and the other scripts do seem similar, I simply prefer using my own code. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not prohibited to convert an article to LDRs; it is, however, prohibited to convert an article to LDRs without consensus. WP:CITEVAR specifically lists the following as an example: changing where the references are defined, e.g., moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guidelines don't prohibit, only policies do, but I do get where you're coming from. Thank you for letting me know. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Fox Showcase#Requested move 27 September 2023 Edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fox Showcase#Requested move 27 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]