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:


Notability for future TV series (cont.)Edit

Continuing on from the above discussion, I have taken WP:NFF and copy-edited it to fit television series (see below). Should it be listed at WP:NFTV (Notability for Future Television Series), or added onto WP:TVSHOW? Perhaps added onto the end of it as a subsection, and WP:NFTV redirects to that subsection?

Rewording of NFTV
Future series, incomplete series, and undistributed series

Television series that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended seriesing date. The assumption should also not be made that because a series is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the series might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun.

In the case of animated series, reliable sources must confirm that the series is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced.[1]

Additionally, series that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released, should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, series produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.


  1. ^ Common steps in the animated film pre-production process are usually geared towards pitching the idea of the film by previewing the final product (for instance, storyboards, scratch voice-over tracks, and rough animations also known as "reels"), and such events do not fulfill the requirements of this guideline. Instead, this guideline attempts to ensure that the film has been green-lighted and is currently in production, as evidenced by activities analogous to live-action filming, such as recording of final voice-over tracks by credited voice actors, recording of final music and foley sound effects, and drawing/rendering of final animation frames.

If you've any changes to the above collapse suggestion, I recommend editing it directly, rather than having multiple copies of it. -- AlexTW 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is also important to include that pilots that have begun principal photography, but have not been given a "series order", should not have their own articles either. - Brojam (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
More pages for shows that haven't aired? This is getting ridiculous. WP already has pages for series that never aired. What's next, pages for actors who appeared in pilots not picked up & had no other credits? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 07:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Such as? Can you link to them? If you're talking about WP:TVSHOW, it does not mention any such topic of series that have not aired, or more conforming to consensus, series that have not yet begun filming. -- AlexTW 08:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
What Brojam says is absolutely crucial – that absolutely needs to be in there: TV pilots that have not been ordered to series (yet) almost certainly do not qualify for articles in mainspace. But the fact is that WP:TVSHOW needs a more significant rewrite than even this, because it also needs to make even clearer that "airing nationally" (or being released "nationally" by something like Netflix) does not guarantee notability, esp. these days, and what actually determines TV show "notability" is whether it has received significant independent coverage, as per WP:GNG – plenty of TV shows on lower-rung cable channels and many TV movies do not meet this benchmark, especially in this day and age. --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with both you and Brojam, and I'm sure that the Project looks forward to your proposals. We can have as many discussions as we want, but nothing will go anywhere unless someone actually puts together a proposed edit. -- AlexTW 13:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose User:IJBall's proposed change(s). We absolutely should have looser notability standards for TV shows, because Wikipedia:Systemic bias is already bad enough and this is one area where allowing more articles would not likely risk getting a bunch of garbage into the encyclopedia – just about any TV show airing on a "national" network involves huge teams of people, so it could pretty much never fall under WP:1DAY. And more importantly, readers expect to find an article on each and every TV show for which one can reasonably be written (i.e. that isn't completely lost or something) – remember, we are editing for the readers, not to satisfy some non-existent objective standard of notability. Modernponderer (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
That's absolutely not the purpose of this encyclopedia. You're basically making an "It WP:EXISTS" argument. By design, we only cover topics that have received significant independent coverage. That's WP:GNG. We literally are not "allowed" to come up with any notability standard that is "looser" than that. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@User:IJBall: Actually, we come up with "looser" standards than GNG all the time – WP:SNG is an entire category of them. For example, some of those subject-specific guidelines only require the confirmed existence of a single major award for the subject of the article, as opposed to GNG's substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Quite a big difference there.
And WP:EXISTS is essentially a corollary of WP:1DAY – which I already explained does not really apply to TV shows (certainly not the ones on major networks). So no, I am not making that argument at all. Modernponderer (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, WP:SNG applies specifically to lists, not to "topic" articles. So that's not relevant... Bottom line: You can dress it up any way you want, but you're basically saying we should ignore WP:GNG when it comes to TV shows. Why? What makes TV shows so "special" that we should ignore our notability standards, as opposed to everything else?! --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
User:IJBall, you are completely incorrect on the SNG. Please have another look at that link – it has absolutely nothing to do with lists. (In fact the entirety of WP:NMEDIA, including WP:TVSHOW, is essentially SNG, but not categorized as such because it isn't even policy! Which by the way really makes me wonder what the point of changing it would be, since nobody would be obliged to follow it...)
And I literally just explained exactly why TV shows should have a lower bar – two very specific and important reasons. Please re-read my original post here. Modernponderer (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, WP:SNGs should never have "lower standards" than WP:GNG. If they do, they're wrong. Indeed, there's been a fair amount of push-back on this when it comes to sports athletes, because they don't meet GNG. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are our baselines. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
User:IJBall, while I respect your opinion the existence of the SNGs I mentioned – as actual guidelines with community consensus – means that it is your view that is out of line with "the purpose of this encyclopedia", and not mine. Modernponderer (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, uh, no it's not – go over to, say, WP:VPP, and propose the idea that it's "OK" for SNGs to have lower threshholds than GNG. I think you'll find the response to that proposal illuminating... Suffice it to say, any SNGs that have "lower standards" than GNG arose much earlier in the history of this project. That they've stuck around doesn't demonstrate that there is "community consensus support" for that – it's rather that either nobody has bothered to try to change them, or that there isn't "consensus for their updating" (which is not the same thing as saying there is "consensus support" for their current wording). But these SNGs that don't meet GNG is a classic example of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And we in WP:TV should not attempt to play that game. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@User:IJBall: So your argument now is simply that VPP wouldn't like it? Sorry, I can't exactly debate hypotheticals like that. I prefer to stick with the established guidelines – and just to be clear, if there is no consensus to change them that IS a consensus to keep them the same (if only an implied one).
And no, LOCALCONSENSUS does not apply here – both the GNG and SNGs are guidelines, and one does not override the other unless explicitly stated. (In fact, they work together for notability, in the sense that an article that satisfies either of them is likely to be kept.)
Also, you still haven't addressed the elephant in the room here – the fact that WP:NMEDIA/WP:TVSHOW is neither a policy nor a guideline, and as such editors (such as myself) are completely free to ignore it (and changes to it) altogether. Modernponderer (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Strongly support IJBall's statement per reasons stated within. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) Unless I'm mistaken, IJBall is not proposing changes which would affect anything much more than local television or programmes on very obscure channels. In my experience, the larger systemic bias issue on television articles is not that we have too strict a notability criterion, but that no-one has actually bothered to write an article yet. For instance, I was recently surprised to see that BBC Four's There She Goes (a show about a disabled girl) didn't have an article, but now it does. Bilorv(c)(talk) 19:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
No, that's actually not what I'm saying. Local programming is sometimes notable, and is sometimes not. I haven't even touched on that. What I am saying is that many TV programs (and TV movies), that "air nationally", are in fact not notable under WP:GNG. Thus we need to get rid of that statement in WP:TVSHOW. It was pretty much true back in the "three network universe" through the 1980s that "any original TV program that aired" would get significant coverage, and would thus be "notable". But in especially the last 1 to 2 decades, there are plenty of "original" unscripted, and even some scripted, TV shows, that effectively receive little-to-no (significant) independent coverage. You find them on the lower-rung cable channels. The same is even more true of TV movies – how many of the flood of "Christmas" TV movies that we're getting this year are actually notable? (None of the ones on ION TV, I'd bet! for example...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I've no idea what ION is or what its viewing figures are like but it sounds like what I'd class as "programmes on very obscure channels", if their television movies are genuinely not getting any critical reviews. I suppose it depends what your definition of "little" independent coverage is. If it gets two or three ("multiple") reviews ("independent" / "reliable sources") which are at least a few paragraphs long ("significant coverage"), then I would say it meets WP:GNG. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with that. But, these days, a lot of TV movies will only get a "one to two sentence capsule summary" in scheduling guides... Again, I think TVSHOW needs to be updated for the "Peak TV" universe – the assumption that a TV show is notable "because it airs nationally" is no longer the case. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree; routine scheduling coverage isn't enough. Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I like where this is heading, but agree there has to be something in there about pilots, which shouldn't have articles until they are actually picked up by a network. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I somewhat agree that any unsold pilots should've have articles unless they are actually picked up by a network. But they are pilots that have been aired and such, like the Amazon pilot The After which was previously ordered a eight episode season 1, but it was canceled without shooting another episode beyond the pilot. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Bumping, in case anyone wants to do anything related to this. I've noticed most discussions here fizzle out and never conclude, which is why we don't have any solid rules and just rely on unwritten "standard practices". -- /Alex/21 04:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally share many of the above concerns about systemic bias against shows in countries with media coverage that is harder to parse without native language abilities, less readily available online, or for shows whose existence predates widespread internet coverage. Sometimes, we can rely on the original language's wikipedia for sources or links -- and that's great if we can; however, sometimes an article doesn't exist in those languages: not for reasons of notability (necessarily), but simply because the size of the English wikipedia is so much larger. matt91486 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Need opinions on splitEdit

How do we currently stand on splitting out episode lists? Normally I'd support splitting the episodes from a series article with 15 seasons to a separate LoE page but this unexplained, unattributed split has turned Tanked into little more than a stub as the episode list was virtually the entire article. All that is left now is the lede and infobox. The episode list is incomplete, with many episode summaries missing, so I really don't see a problem in this case having all of the episodes in the main article. What is everyones' opinion for these articles? --AussieLegend () 10:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think it is OK in this case. I've seen a few similar articles where a long episode list has been split off. It would be better to attempt adding some more series info to the primary article, which should be possible given how many seasons have aired you would think. -- Whats new?(talk) 10:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, nobody has shown any interest in expanding the main series article. This is always an issue with the less popular reality type TV pgograms. Even episode tables suffer. I used to do it a lot but lost interest as it seemed pointless since nobody was looking at the articles. I should also note that the lede of List of Tanked episodes has been copied (unattributed) from Tanked. That means that if you remove content from Tanked that is now in List of Tanked episodes, the only unique content is the infobox. That alone should be justification to merge Tanked into List of Tanked episodes as you don't need an entire article just for an infobox. This is why I asked the question. --AussieLegend () 12:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
As it currently looks (looking at the pre-split version) it doesn't seem that long. I do agree with Whats new? that if any additional information to the article were to be added then the split would probably be a good option, however if no one is going to do the work, then there probably also isn't a rush for a split. Maybe HonorTheKing is working on that? --Gonnym (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Eh with this particular show I don't see the reason for the split unless someone is planning to expand the main article. The leads on both articles looks almost the same to me. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 14:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Yikes, I think the changes should be reverted if the editor isn't willing to put in the effort to expand the main article. There's enough information floating around for any reality show to pad an article out. It just takes someone willing and able to do the work to make such substantial contributions to the page. I think the question also needs to be asked, what benefit does the series having a "List of episodes" page really have? Because it's just empty tables with ratings information. Esuka323 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. I've reverted the split for now, since there have been no further changes to the main article and only 1 to the LoE page, that being the replacement of an episode summary with a copyvio. If the main article is expanded we can look at a split then. --AussieLegend () 11:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Twin Peaks (2017 TV series)#Requested move 1 January 2019Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Twin Peaks (2017 TV series)#Requested move 1 January 2019. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

"Camera" infobox parameterEdit

A recent discussion at Talk:Homecoming (TV series) determined that the "Camera" infobox field was inappropriately sourced to the TV show itself, which constitutes WP:OR. An editor pointed out that this parameter is widely used and usually unsourced, which means that it may need to be removed from a large number of articles if sourcing cannot be found. Posting here so that folks are aware of this consensus and the reason for these removals. –dlthewave 02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This would seem to effect articles such as Doctor Who, The Wire, The Sopranos, and Lost. – BoogerD (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Make sure that you take the effort to either find a source first, as it is better to research and improve Wikipedia, or at least tag the content with {{citation needed}}, than to simply mass-delete from multitudes of articles. -- /Alex/21 03:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
It is so easy to cite most of these shows via quick Google searches. If you're taking the time to find articles with unsourced camera parameters, it would be helpful to also actively add references too. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. Mass removal is a poor solution to an easy problem. -- /Alex/21 03:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Just so everyone is clear, I have no intention of editing any of those articles. Only meant to point out that this apparent issue, as it has been explained in that linked to discussion, affects articles such as the ones above. – BoogerD (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
For what its worth, I found that it wasn't as easy as suggested above to find reliable, secondary sources for which camera setup was used by the above mentioned series (save maybe Doctor Who). In my experience, articles announcing upcoming television series generally only specify camera setup when it comes to comedy series. For drama series, I suppose most entertainment journalists just assume that the setup is a given. Also worth noting, shows nominated for awards like the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Drama Series or the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Comedy Series and mention and source those nominations in the body of their respective articles would seem to be in the clear as far as this concerned. The Emmy Awards actually have numerous categories that specify single-camera and multi-camera. More food for thought. – BoogerD (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Season 6 removal and season 5 episodesEdit

Hi,i'm here to dicuss that there isn't a season 6 yet.I also added some summaries for the 18 19 and 20th episodes of season 5--Tophat566 (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about an article? If so, this belongs on the talk page of that particular article. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 00:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
This belongs in Talk:List of Wild Kratts episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Moved to that talk page at Talk:List of Wild Kratts episodes#Season 6 removal and season 5 episodes. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials listed at Requested movesEdit

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of Doctor Who Christmas and New Year's specials to be moved to List of Doctor Who specials. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. This move request covers the scope and intention of the article in question, and could do with some objective eyes from outside the Doctor Who project. Please do take a look if interested, and consider the draft changes at User:U-Mos/sandbox also. U-Mos (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

For anyone interested...Edit

While dealing with an editor I happened across List of Skatoony episodes which is a bit of a mess. I have no idea what a Skatoony is and I'm still dealing with the death of my wife so I don't have time to fix the article. If anyone is interested in fixing this article, you're welcome to do so. --AussieLegend () 04:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes listEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Red Table Talk#Episodes list. – BoogerD (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

TfD's that may interest youEdit

Articles for deletionEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mireasă pentru fiul meu season 2 (Romania) . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Academy 9 (France) . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 12:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:2018 in American television#Split proposalEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2018 in American television#Split proposal. Regarding a discussion to split one or more sections into standalone articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Gap in MOS:TVNOWEdit

In the discussion around this edit to List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), it became clear that MOS:TVNOW is slightly lacking when it comes to fictional television series. Although the section is clear that "references to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense", and that "some defunct non-fiction and live programs" may differ from this. This only implies how any participants in the production of a fiction programme (actors, writers, directors etc.) should be referred to, and also ignores previous participants in an ongoing non-fiction/live show (off the top of my head, Jeremy Clarkson's hosting of Top Gear). At the request for comment around this issue, Masem has quite justifiably advocated using the past tense when discussing the previous actors who have played the Doctor from a historical point of view. I believe these matters, that are not in any way unusual, should be covered in the guidelines to ensure consistency across the television WikiProject. U-Mos (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Discussion of two WP:BOLD edits at MOS:TVCASTEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Discussion of two WP:BOLD edits at MOS:TVCAST. U-Mos (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


If anyonw is interested, please participate in the discussion over here: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#ITV Sources

MiaSays (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#InitialsEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#Initials. — YoungForever(talk) 14:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


Please could an editor familiar with U.S. TV take a look at Template:Waterman Broadcasting Corporation? An IP editor has expanded it recently, and many of the stations listed there have no obvious connection to Waterman. Thanks, Certes (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted to the March 2014 version – changes this massive require some kind of explanation. Also, the "new version" was much too massive to be useful as a navbox. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox season discussion users might be interested inEdit

There is currently a proposal up for discussion at Template talk:Infobox television season#Adjusting the header title that users might want to weigh in on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother (Albanian TV series)#Requested move 14 January 2019 Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother (Albanian TV series)#Requested move 14 January 2019 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 15 Edit

The misuse of the term Television in relation to web videos that have never aired on television.Edit

I happened to notice that the page title for the Netflix series A Series of Unfortunate Events claims that it is a TV series. Correct me if I am wrong here but the definition of "TV Series" is "a show that has been made for broadcasting on television" is it not? While Netflix and the show itself may constantly claim the show to be "streaming television" which here should mean "a TV show which is made available on (a) streaming video service(s), specifically those on the internet(as opposed to Cable Video on Demand, though the two are not mutually exclusive as some services provide internet-based Video on Demand directly from cable companies and broadcasters themselves)". If the show was made for, and exclusively streamed on Netflix, then how would it fit the definition of "TV Series" or "streaming television"?

As I was writing this for that show's talk page, I noticed while looking into the matter to be certain, that this site's own article on "television show" claims streaming video counts in the heading but fails to cite any sources. "Web television" also fails to mention the origin of the term or provide any sources for the term itself, mostly mentioning various web services claiming to be TV services, though it also mentions the International Academy of Web Television, which is an article rife with primary sources and a couple of articles that are specifically talking about the "Streamy Awards" which do not in any way validate their use of the term. Also, streaming media claims that the only websites that stream TV Shows are ones like "Hulu and Amazon", while YouTube is mentioned as a site to stream video games in stark contrast to what web television says on the matter. Seems to me that a larger problem is at play here that needs to be addressed, which is why I modified what I said and decided to post it here instead.

I understand that the lines have been blurred a bit in the digital age and that's understandable but clarity between terms exists for a reason and at the very least, as a compromise I would ask that more specific terms such as "streaming television" "webseries" or "Netflix series" should be used in cases like the aforementioned Netflix-exclusive series in spite of my insistence on the term "streaming television" being a misnomer here. Mattwo7 (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mattwo7: Hi there, I don't speak for the community, but I'm not sure if such a distinction is warranted. Do we differentiate between over-the-air television and cable television and satellite television? Don't we all generally feel that those things are the same even though the delivery comes in slightly different ways? I typically watch Netflix on my television. I could watch it on my computer via HTTPS, but does that make it a "web series" if I can also watch it through my phone or tablet app using whatever internet protocols they use? If I'm not using a web browser, is it still a web series? Similarly, I can also watch live cable shows wirelessly through my computer or tablet! So again, the delivery mechanism doesn't seem to define the content. If a program is created for Netflix or Hulu, I think it still generally fits into a few well-defined categories, like movie, documentary or series. The word television just means "distance vision"--it doesn't have to mean "content that is watched on a large box in the middle of the living room". Those are my two cents. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: It is to my understanding that here at Wikipedia, sources overrule personal opinion and the overall lack of sources supporting the use of the term all across this project needs to be rectified if you want to push such an opinion in the face of what I've said. The definition food chain seems to be cited sources>dictionary>original research (with original research not being allowed at all here, which is part of the problem that I am bringing up). Sure if you break the word down you get those words but that's not the definition of the word "television" and I'm pretty sure definitions typically overrule etymology as a general rule of thumb when it comes to language in general, not just English (driveway and parkway are prime examples). Also satellite and cable are both live broadcast, comparing them to Netflix is like comparing apples to oranges, only the VoD stuff compares and that comes with the live broadcasting service where as Netflix offers no such thing, none of their originals have ever been broadcast live whereas the vast majority of VoD content (save for stuff like wrestling matches) has been aired live, a closer comparison to the VoD content on television would be a video podcast (I.e. Game Theory's GT Live) that's streamed live before being archived with an on-demand viewing service. Also btw, I've done a little more digging and it does seem that the term "television" in regards to web-original programming is more widely accepted than I thought so it shouldn't be too hard to find the sources to back up your opinion. Mattwo7 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Also the fact that you access services like Hulu and Netflix via devices like HDTV sets, mobile phones and gaming consoles doesn't mean it isn't web-based, you're accessing content stored on the internet using the frontend of an API. Mattwo7 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I doubt we'll be able to find any specific source to make it clear, but the reason why Netflix series are considered TV series is that they are created and produced in a manner reflecting how traditional television is put together: the show idea is pitched, a production company is sought, distribution rights have to be made, a season order is requested, there's casting, filming, production and post-production, and then distribution; further seasons have to be greenlit subsequently, and they are released in roughly annual basis, just not necessarily aligned with broadcast's year (from Sept to August). In contrast to a typical Youtube-based series which does not require many of those steps, specifically production and distribution company and rights - they are self published. (So something like Hot Ones is properly attributed as a web series vs TV series). Just because Netflix series generally have all episodes of a season landing the same doesn't meant they're not TV series - some broadcast TV series have had multiple episodes aired first on a single day. Other considerations to add is that the Emmys make no distinction between broadcast and streaming. (I remember way back when there was major consternation between over-the-air and cable, hence the ACE awards, but the industry has since viewed both as the same media format). --Masem (t) 16:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother (season 1)#Requested move 18 January 2019 Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pinoy Big Brother (season 1)#Requested move 18 January 2019 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 23:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Template:Hotel1 Edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 January 19#Template:Hotel1 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requestedEdit

Hi, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Threshold for inclusion of awards. Short story, I'm trying to figure out what the community requires when deciding whether or not an award should be added to a TV article, and I'd like to encourage specific language be added to the MOS. Your comments there are appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Cite episode standardizationEdit

I've recently taken a look at {{Cite episode}} and noticed that the |author= parameter is being used in different ways by different editors. It would be good if we decide on a standed way for this to be done, and if needed request additional parameters be made available.

A few notes:

  • Text should not be manually added after an individual as it corrupts the citation's author metadata. Example: J.J. Abrams (Director).
  • Credits that can be considered "authors" - Writer, Teleplay, Story, Director, Showrunner - which of these, or others should be used? Note that while the script has a "writer" author, the finished audio-visual episode is not solely based on the writers vision (unlike a book), which means that if you cite an episode for a visual visual or SFX moment and a writer is used as an author, that seems to be wrong.
  • If writers are used, should WGA screenwriting credit system (Writer A and Writer B vs Writer A & Writer B) be taken into consideration?

--Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion at Help talk:CS1#Cite episode and author. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Television".