Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

Active discussions
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:

tvaholics blog as Reliable source?Edit

Looks like is used as a reference in many TV articles, about 320.

Thing is, this site doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It's self-published anonymously, with no author or owner names. When it does offer a reference, the reference is often a scan of a Neilsen ratings column in a USA Today newspaper (here for example). The scans are systematically republished, and an apparent copyright violation.

There's the obvious WP:RSSELF problem. But the blogspot site requests contributions and has lots of advertising, so I worry about WP:SPONSORED.

Does anyone object to removing these references? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No objection – "blogspot" is right there in the URL, so clearly this fails WP:SELFPUBLISH and is WP:NOTRS, just like IMDb, etc. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This is completed. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've heard from @Rswallis10: and @Drmargi:, who have reverted some of the edits I made while cleaning up these references. These are the edits in question:

There are a few different patterns in the references I've removed.

One example is what was discussed here last month: <ref name="10-1990">{{cite web|url=|title=Ratings Archive - October 1990|date=June 2, 2010|accessdate=March 21, 2015}}</ref> This reference goes to a self-published blog, which is an unacceptable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH.

Another pattern looks like this: <ref name="sept-oct1996">{{cite web|url=|title=Nielsen Ratings - September-October 1996|work=USA Today|accessdate=July 13, 2015}}</ref> contains a reference that claims the work is the USA Today newspaper, but links to a scanned PDF file on the website. The PDF contains scans of partial pages of several issues in the newspaper. The site doesn't claim to have permission to republish scanned copies of the newspaper's content, so this is pretty clearly copyvio. It also isn't a complete reference, since the author, title, publication date, and page number aren't available from the original newspaper.

WP:COPYVIO says, celarly and explicitly: "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to".

Thus, we must remove the URL. If we do so, we're left with a reference that's not at all viable because of those missing parameters. It doesn't identify a source for the referenced facts, and is therefore not verifiable. So, instead, I've replaced the references with {{citation needed}}.

If this information is valuable, then I'm sure some other source for it exists. It should be possible to retrieve the USA Today articles, either online or physically at a library, for example, and develop proper {{cite news}} references for them. Until then, because self-published references aren't usable, and because links to copyvio material aren't allowed, the references should be removed and replaced with {{citation needed}} tags. Something like {{cite news|work=USA Today| page=F3 |title ="Neilsen Ratings for the week of 1 January 2025 |date=2025-01-15 |author=Joe Sample}} would be appropriate. A URL isn't needed (and a URL top copyvio material isn't used), and a clear and verifiable reference to the source material is provided: the newspaper, publication date, and page number are all provided, along with the title of the column where the information appeared. This is a complete verifiable reference to a third-party source.

@Drmargi: doesn't provide any detailed reasoning for reverting my edits, but instead insists that I develop consensus for editing the articles per the WP:COPYVIO and WP:SELFPUBLISH policies. And so, here I am! Are there reasons these policies shouldn't be honored in these cases? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

NOTE! I've also found WP:YTCOPYRIGHT, which says "Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations". -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The situation you are describing sounds slightly complicated – it sounds like the Blog is basically simply "republishing" ratings from another "original" source. There is no doubt that simply sourcing the original source would be preferable. But, a lot of the times with ratings info, the original source no longer exists (or, at least, is no longer available on the internet). So a Blog post that says something like "According Media Week's ratings for the week of March 20, 2001, ER scored [X] ratings..." is a "gray" area, IMO, as an acceptable source. (I'd probably leave it, but possibly tag it with a {{Better source needed}} tag...) OTOH, if it's a blog post that says simply "ER scored [X] ratings during the week of March 20, 2001.", and there's not even the mention of an original source for this data, then it would definitely be unacceptable for use as a source. --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
If the original source isn't on the Internet, that's fine. The {{cite news}} reference doesn't require a URL, and can reference the printed newspaper article by page, title, and issue date, just like any other hard-copy periodical reference. Unfortunately, the references right now don't include the publication date or page number -- just "USA Today".
The links vary, but most are closer to the second example you give. The reference I happen to quote above for tvaholics doesn't have any text other than a couple of summary sentences about the whole months' top-ranking shows. The rest of the post is copyvio *.JPG pictures of the ratings column. I expect they've come from the USA Today due to the layout. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mikeblas: I do not have a strong opinion either way as I am not well-versed in Wikipedia policy regarding Copyright. @IJBall: is correct in his explanation, as pre-2007 Nielsen ratings are not easy to find online. TVbytheNumbers (TVBTN) began in 2007 and despite beginning as a self-published blog, was eventually acquired by Zap2it, and became the most used Nielsen ratings source on Wikipedia. ShowBuzzDaily (which is also a self-published blog) is now the go-to source on Wikipedia as they provide a LOT more ratings and TVBTN has now shut down. But again, TVBTN only goes back to 2007 and ShowBuzzDaily is only back to 2014, so when it comes to anything before that, it becomes a lot harder to find anything. Due to the fact that almost every Nielsen rating on this site comes from a site that can be classified as WP:SELFPUBLISH (just due to the nature of the data), I wouldn't object to the inclusion of TVAholics solely on that policy. Violating WP:COPYVIO is a totally valid reason to objecting to this data's inclusion; However, I think it might be worth it to invoke WP:IAR because my personal belief is that the value these USA Today citations add to Wikipedia eclipses the importance of WP:COPYVIO. If we disagree on that, I'm totally okay with going through all of these links and changing the citation to {{cite news}}; however, my concern with that is that it makes it much more difficult for readers to find the original source (USA Today is available for free on microfilm in select libraries). Now, is that our problem? Well, not really, but my reason for using that source when I originally did the citations was to make the original source accessible. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, to clarify, the anythingkiss website is run by the same guy as TVAholics, so they are the same source. The TVAholics website links to Anytingkiss where the actual PDF scans of the USA Today are hosted. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we can use WP:IAR where copyvio is involved as there are legal and external ramifications for doing so. That is, copyvio isn't a rule -- it's a law, so I don't think we've got any choice but to expunge the links. In some cases, that means removing the URL and the well-populated citation tag stays because it contains the necessary reference information. In other cases, the citation left behind isn't a complete reference and should be replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag in case someone eventually finds the needed reference. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Rswallis10:, I haven't heard back from you after a few days. I'd like to proceed by removing the URLs in question. If the remaining reference is viable (that is, includes the publication date and page of the newspaper) I can reformat it into a {{cite news}} reference. Otherwise, I'll replace it with a Fact tag. Please let me know if you have an alternative solution. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, we should be citing the newspaper articles and absolutely not linking to copyright violations. Editors at pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request might be able to help out for old articles not online. I'd say in this situation it's better to leave the information there, with a {{citation needed}} tag if necessary, rather than remove it, though the ideal is citing the right news article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mikeblas:@Bilorv: I would agree with that, is it possible to leave the data there (as we know it is correct) but put a citation needed tag? Rswallis10 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I intend to do -- and what I had done, actually, in my reverted changes. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Per our discussion, I've edited these articles:

  • List of The Critic episodes: just a cite web with a URL, no mention of the newspaper. These were replaced with {{fact}} tags.
  • ER (season 3): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
  • ER (season 4): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
  • House of Buggin': cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
  • Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction: just a cite web with a URL, no mention of the newspaper. These were replaced with {{fact}} tags.
  • ER (season 1): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
  • ER (season 2): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
  • The Truth (Seinfeld) raw reference to tvaholics (self-published, replaced with {{fact}} tag.

In all cases, I've left whatever claim (or number, or ...) was made; it's just the reference themselves that have bee nreplaced, not the fact in question. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CFD: Television program(me)s → Television showsEdit

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s, where I have proposed renaming 471 categories, by replacing the phrase "television program(me)s" with "Television shows". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This brings up a larger issue that WP:TV really should tackle – the move of the article television program to television show in late 2017 after a poorly attend WP:RM. The membership of WP:TV really need to consider if that RM result is acceptable, and whether maybe another WP:RM, this time with the fuller participation of WP:TV, should be launched to reverse the earlier result... --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Just to add: the proposal to standardize categories as a "television show" is for all television programs, which by being an across-the-board renaming would include news, documentaries, made-for-TV films, after school specials, sports; English-language, and non-English language programs. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Is a reliable source?Edit

About 130 TV project articles use as a source. These pages are all self-published, and therefore are not |reliable sources. Is there any objection to removing these references and replacing them with {{fact}} tags? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

No, no objection. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
It is clearly not a reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 18:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK! I've removed these references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

List of most expensive television shows needs to be writtenEdit

It looks like we don't have a List of most expensive television shows article to complement our List of most expensive films article. Does anyone want to write it? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There are likely two issues with that. First, whereas films do have tracking of how much individual films are made on a regular basis, this doesn't exist for television shows. Secondary, at best, I've seen TV estimated on cost on a per-episode basis, if that is even given. While you might be able to build a list, it will be based on a very fragmented data set and thus not be very useful. --Masem (t) 04:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Yep – honestly, I suspect the sourcing isn't there for such a list focused on TV. --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand, the more expensive the production the more likely we are to hear a budget estimate, in my experience. Most expensive television episodes might be plausible. But even then it might be a bit of a stretch. — Bilorv (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The sourcing will be difficult. Even for the "expensive films" article, the sourcing isn't easy because studios play fast and loose with accounting and budgeting and announcements. It's not easy to get good numbers, and it's hard to factor out bias. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting or deleting 2010s in Irish television?Edit

This decade-of-years article is unique; I don't think other countries (or broadcast markets?) have articles for a decade of "in television" events. The article is a mess; it's a bunch of smaller articles for each year, all glude together in one topic, headers and footers and all. There's an apparently stalled proposal to split the articles. Is there any reason not to do the split? (Pinging people: Pi314m, This is Paul ) -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No reason at all IMHO, I was going to give it a couple of weeks before splitting, then got sidetracked updating stuff about the COVID-19 pandemic. If there are no major objections I'll do it over the weekend. This is Paul (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Sounds great (I'm all for it). LMK if you need any helps! -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, I'll make a start this evening. If you're about I might need a couple of redirects deleting so I can move some pages. I don't think it will be possible to revert the moves because the articles have been edited since they were moved. This is Paul (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
An Update: Everything is pretty much back to how it was now, just a couple of redirects to delete so pages can be moved. The decades pages have been converted into disambiguation pages, which seems like a good plan to me. This is Paul (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Redirects deleted. Cheers, Rehman 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, have moved everything back now and finished creating disambig pages with the decades pages. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Multitude of images related to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. are up for discussionEdit

Input from other editors are welcome, even if you don't watch the series but have knowledge of non-free images, particularly in relation to MOS:TVIMAGE. You can find all the images here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Dating review aggregator infoEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Dating review aggregator info. — YoungForever(talk) 13:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#ViewersEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers. — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Queer Eye (2018 TV series)#Requested move 19 May 2020Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queer Eye (2018 TV series)#Requested move 19 May 2020. — YoungForever(talk) 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Diriliş: ErtuğrulEdit

You may not have heard of it, but it's kind of famous. Your input is welcome at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements. Article could also benefit from more editing/watchers overall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Articles for Creation now has a sort tool; you can use it to review Draft TV articlesEdit

Just thought some folks here would like to be able to see proposed drafts and weigh in: Wikipedia:AfC_sorting#Culture/Media/Television_(14). MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please look at this infoboxEdit

Please look at the length of this infobox in this article. Words fail me.--AussieLegend () 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yikes. I saw your trims and I removed the exhaustive list of languages, but there is still a lot of junk for an infobox (no need to list every EP for the entire series!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAnthony (talkcontribs) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we should be thankful that the rest of the article manages to follow at least the rudiments of MOS:TV – many articles (esp. animation and anime articles!) do not! (My latest example being Dinnerladies (TV series), which I've just cleaned up...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes looks pretty bad too IMO... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to continually wonder why 22-minute episodes need plot summaries over 300 words... QueerFilmNerdtalk 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@QueerFilmNerd: You should have seen over Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Plot length when there was a 7 minute episode clocking more than 400 words. — YoungForever(talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
YoungForever, I assume people think that since its shorter, they can just include more of the plot. Anyways, I got rid of a lot of fluff information and trivia for the episodes, I removed air dates for countries that aren't listed in the countries of origin, since we don't need to know the air date of every single country, regardless of dub. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Defunct TV shows and the general MOS on verb tensesEdit

There's been a discussion related to what verb tenses to use for defunct magazines ("is" vs "was") over at WT:MOS#WP:WAS and defunct magazines. In that, I've brought up the concept that there is a difference between "content" that is persistent (that retains present tense) and the "container" (that when it stops publication becomes "was", but its content may still be discussed in present tense)

This led to the discussion of television shows in the same manner. In that it makes sense to same something like I Love Lucy was a television show... I Love Lucy is considered one of the best comedy series... as the show itself was a container, whereas episodes are specific content such that we'd still say "Lucy Does a TV Commercial" is an episode of the television show I Love Lucy.... There are a handful of exceptions (miniseries, one-off events, streaming media shows like Netflix Originals) that have been discussed, but there's now a suggestion of moving on this idea. As this would affect TV shows, I wanted to make sure the TV project was pinged to provide comments on this since this will affect this project the most. --Masem (t) 17:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that something like "I Love Lucy is an American comedy television series that aired on CBS from October 15, 1951 to May 6, 1957..." is not wrong in terms of tense, and is in fact correct. Luckily, from what I could see, the linked-to discussion did not come to any conclusion about WP:TVNOW. But for my $0.02, WP:TVNOW is in fact correct, and should not be changed. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposalEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposal. Currently, the mainspace tv series and three individual season articles (currently redirects to the main article) are fully protected due to edit warring/dispute over how to split the main article either to split by season, split to list of episodes, or no split. — YoungForever(talk) 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Additional comment: Editors are still needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 14:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead sectionEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:WCVB-TV has been nominated for deletionEdit


Category:WCVB-TV, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

American Idol color templatesEdit

Hi there, I just want editors or anyone who can help will be fine. I've happen to come across the page and asking for a help request if anyone can change the color scheme format for the American Idol articles (the first 15 seasons). I'm doing this because that from what I observed:

  • The colorful scheme has mostly been used for other competition and the contrast has been ideal for display. Using only monochrome colors lack contrast and the bold typeface should only be indicated for winners, not elimination. The yellow, light blue, light green and pink colors were the most common, respectively used for public save/top entries, judges save/bottom entries, special save and elimination.
  • The colorful scheme was first used on the ABC-revival (season 16 and later) and it had later adopted for a few select articles, such as SPOP Sing! (another reality singing competition held the same year as the AI season 16, in 2018)
  • I've seen other articles like The Voice and The X Factor, and these displays of results and performance charts are acceptable.
  • Maintain a good consistency on other articles, that is, the same format as all other articles in a series.

Earlier before I came to the page, I experimented the format on the very first AI season so that this will get attention to editors. I had faced a time constraint and unable to edit most big articles for the time being, however.

For other Idol articles outside US, it's about time to also see a change. Hope if anyone can also agree on the new changes. TVSGuy (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification of RfC re: WP:WASEdit

Notifying interested parties that there is a new RfC regarding WP:WAS, the outcome of which might impact WP:TVNOW. See RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe periodical publications that are no longer being published?.— TAnthonyTalk 13:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Commented at WT:MOSTV. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone have a WrapPro account?Edit

Does any editor have a WrapPro account that they would be willing to get info from a source for me? I'm trying to access this source on TheWrap about Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. but it is behind the WrapPro service. If anyone does and would be willing to copy the text to another site to share with me so I could look over its content to see what could be added, that would be much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Information has been obtained. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Preferred Order of EpisodesEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Preferred Order of Episodes. Another discussion about what should be the "correct" order of episodes in episode tables, and whether this should be added to the MOS. --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Total DramaRama double-episodesEdit

Wanting to get some input here about what should be done regarding double-length episode of Total DramaRama. Both the first season and second season have had at least one double-length (30 min.) episode, being "Camping is In Tents" (currently listed as S1 E41) and most recently, "Dissing Cousins" (currently listed as S2 E16). Sources being used such as Futon Critic and Zap2it both list both of these episodes as one double-length episode, not two separate normal-length episodes (Futon Critic giving "Camping is In Tents" production code 'V141' and "Dissing Cousins" 'V216-30'). Viewership-wise, Showbuzz Daily gives the viewership for both episodes as one 30-minute episode (Here for "Camping", here for "Dissing").

There's recently been an IP over on the talk page discussing and giving sources that seem to point towards the episodes in question being listed as two separate episodes. I don't want to put too much info here, but you can see the sources they've provided on that talk page. There are also some other points to make towards this, such as Cartoon Network listing "Dissing Cousins" by their two separate parts on their website (Part 1, part 2). However, two things to point out from that- being that A. the credits for both parts of "Dissing Cousins" are the same (Written by: Miles Smith, Directed by: Keith Oliver & George Elliot) and that B. only "Dissing Cousins" is listed by the two separate parts, "Camping is In Tents" is listed as one full-length episode on the Cartoon Network website.

With all these different sources in mind (again, see the Total DramaRama talk page discussion for the sources suggesting they should be separate as two parts/episodes), what would be the best way to go about this? I remember seeing a discussion in the past about a double-length/two separate episodes, and found it again tonight, regarding Blood & Treasure, maybe that discussion could help a bit here? I dunno.

Finally, wanting to note that I am entirely open to splitting these episodes up and listing them as two parts in the episode tables. Just not entirely sure when there's quite a few sources supporting both sides of this... Any help is appreciated, thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Diriliş: Ertuğrul againEdit

We could use more opinions on this [1] content, discussion on talk at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also sceptical that TRT Ertugrul Ghazi by PTV merits a separate article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

And yet another discussion about sources in the plot sectionEdit

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#MOS:PLOTSOURCE and WP:PRIMARY. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Doom Patrol (TV series)#HBO MaxEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Doom Patrol (TV series)#HBO Max. — YoungForever(talk) 14:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox reality talent competitionEdit

 Template:Infobox reality talent competition has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox reality competition season. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Television".