Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

The More You Know 2011.png

image:The More You Know 2011.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Television channel lists

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested to comment in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Television channel lists concerning several pages that point to television channel categories. Cnilep (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Disney's Doc McStuffins missing Four-time Emmy Award Winnning Director, Norton Virgien

Disney's "Doc McStuffins" series is missing the series director from the article -- Four-time Emmy Award Winnning Director, Norton Virgien. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.126.247 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Help reviewing revised draft of C-SPAN

Hello to anyone watching this page! I'm looking for an editor (or editors) to review an updated draft I have prepared for the C-SPAN article. Back in late April, I requested a peer review of the article and received feedback from two separate editors. I incorporated a number of their suggestions, and what I did not include I subsequently explained at Talk:C-SPAN. Unfortunately, though I've reached out to these editors twice, neither editor has offered any follow-up comment.

The reason why I have not been bold and made these changes: I am not just a fan of C-SPAN, but am a consultant to the network. Because of this financial COI, I am avoiding all direct edits to the live article, and my revised version remains in my userspace, here: User:WWB_Too/C-SPAN_(2013_revision)

Since this article falls under the purview of this WikiProject, I'm hoping that someone here is interested in reviewing my work. If an editor here is able to review the changes—and perhaps move them live—I would really appreciate it. Worth noting: my explanation on the Talk page is meant to be thorough, so it will take a bit of time. However, I've tried to make it as easy (and fun?) to follow the changes as possible. And my goal is to take this to FA as soon as this is accomplished. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples are covered by WP:NCTV. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCTV. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Universal Television

FYI, the various logos used at Universal Television have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Addition to infobox?

ITV's Endeavour (TV series) is a show written and "devised by" Russell Lewis. As enumerated in Commissioning @ BBC, a "deviser" is a standard showrunner role; it is similar to the creator role, though devising is based on another creator's work, as seen in the "developer's" role that on Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). As a standardised role defined by the BBC and also used by ITV, I suggest "Devised by" should be added to {{Infobox television}}. Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.22 (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that we have a "developed by" role already, which should suit that purpose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

DVD/Blu-ray covers on episode lists

Being discussed at Village pump, looking for more opinions. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Current Status for Television Shows

Frequently, visitors use Wikipedia to determine the most-current status of a Television show, eg. Cancelled, Season 3 under production, Season 2 begins airing September 1st etc.

It seems to me this would be a valuable section to include as a callout detail, rather than having to dig for the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.20.118 (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to adding it to Template:Infobox television, there used to be a |status= parameter, but it was removed two years ago. You can read the discussion here: [1] --Logical Fuzz (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for pointing me to that discussion, interesting to hear how the discussion went down, and understand why the feature is no longer present, but it does seem unfortunate that other sites end up serving this process better. A binary on-off system (rundates vs. x - present) provides a base layer understanding of where the show stands, but requires digging through the entire article to get any further details. Just less elegant IMO. 76.91.20.118 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Request feedback

Hi guys! I am not sure who is following this, or if this is the best place to request this, but I would really appreciate any feedback for these two FXCs I have but got little responses until now:

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by House/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 1)/archive3

Thanks in advance! Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

addition to the 'popular culture' paragraph on the 'bewitched article

On the 'Golden Girls' 24th episode of the second season Sophia says:"you're looking at a woman who lived through two world wars,15 vendettas,four major operations and two darrins on bewitched".I think it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.236.98.192 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 August 4#Pilot (The Cosby Show)

Two images are nominated for deletion. One is screenshot; other is magazine ad from TV Guide. Besides that one image is orphaned and not in use, prefer one image or the other please if you may. --George Ho (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Copy-Editing help

Is there any editor who would be interested in copy-editing a few X-Files episode articles? I want to send them to FAN, but I want another set of eyes to look over them. The articles are "Home", "The Unnatural", and "One Son". Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Denno.ogg

image:Denno.ogg has been nominated for deletion on health grounds. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also a discussion arising at Talk:Dennō_Senshi_Porygon#seizure_video_up_for_deletion to see if we need to include the video or not. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Genre

Heya, I've been seeing a lot of changes to the Infobox genre parameter at Sanjay and Craig, primarily from one editor who is probably just trolling. Currently the Infobox displays "Adventure, fantasy, surreal humor", but it's also seen "slapstick, surrealism," and some other stuff. I notice this happens often in articles related to children's TV; editors want to pigeonhole their interpretation of the show's humor (gross-out, slapstick, off-color humor, etc) in the genre parameter. However, it looks to me that Template:Infobox television points to Television program#Genres for examples of appropriate genres, and if I'm interpreting things correctly, Sanjay and Craig should simply receive a genre designation of "Animated comedy". Is this correct? And if so, we can get rid of all that other debatable, personal interpretation, right? I appreciate any input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Up All Night (TV series)#Improper Undo Undone

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Up All Night (TV series)#Improper Undo Undone. Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of 2 in the AM PM

2 in the AM PM has been proposed for deletion. Please see WP:Articles for deletion/2 in the AM PM. Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 22:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Chase (2010 TV series)#Merger proposal

I proposed that List of Chase episodes be merged into Chase (2010 TV series) because the TV show got cancelled and there's only one season (which is what the list is composed of. Both articles are short and this show doesn't really require a separate article for a "List of". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Emmy acting superlatives - three issues

I have three issues with the content regarding Emmy acting superlatives.

1. It seems that we no longer consider Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Guest Actress in a Comedy Series a notable enough award to be included in the Primetime Emmy articles like 65th Primetime Emmy Awards. Why don't we produce totals for only Lead plus Supporting. Julia Louis-Dreyfus just passed Lucille Ball's former record of 13 with her 14th nomination this year (see http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20718432,00.html). However, since we include Guest, Betty White's total of 16 is the only overall record presented. Both should appear, IMO.
2. As noted three years ago at Talk:Primetime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Lead_Actress_in_a_Comedy_Series#Article_is_not_only_incomplete.2C_it_seems_to_be_presenting_erroneous_data_points by Abrazame (talk · contribs), the totals exclude the first decade when the name of the category was in constant flux, nullifying the Ball/Louis-Dreyfus record.
3. The tables at the tops of articles like Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series should be templated so that they can be transcluded with perfect uniformity. The lists at the bottom should also be formatted for a single centralized editorial process that gets transcluded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Happy Days list of cast members

The article about Happy Days says starring: Ron Howard, Henry Winkler, Tom Bosley, Marion Ross, Anson Williams, Donny Most, Erin Moran, Al Molinaro, Pat Morita, Scott Baio, Lynda Goodfriend, Cathy Silvers, and Ted McGinley. Gavan O'Herlihy was also a cast member in early episodes. Should his name also be included in the list? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the Infobox tends to be geared more for regular cast members, so I'd argue that while Chuck is suitable for the prose section, his short-lived character would probably not make the cut for the Infobox. Just one person's opinion, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Was he not a regular cast member in the first season? He appearede in 16 episodes, the majority of them that season. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Well that is a good point. I would argue that the scope of the infobox is not to list all of the people who were main cast members, (which could be difficult for some shows,) rather to present an overview. Meh, be bold and add him. If he gets deleted, then you'll get the official objection from whomever deletes him as opposed to my speculation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In the credits for the first season, he is seen regularly eating dinner. Is being seen during the credits notable enough to be listed in the infobox? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, it might be more advantageous to float these questions by Talk:Happy Days since those are the editors you'll have to ultimately sway. And geez, did Crystal Bernard become a main cast member? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kirk Fogg for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kirk Fogg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Fogg 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg

image:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg has been nominated for deletion at PUF -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Titlecards

There seems to be a concerted effort by a few editors at to remove actual titlecards in favour of a generic version as in this discussion Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Golden Girls title card.jpg. Any comments from the project?REVUpminster (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See two discussions up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on tv series' identifying image - title card vs logo

At WP:NFCR a discuss has started where a user replaced the non-free title card for The Golden Girls (a screencap from the show) with a free Graphics Workshop-made text-only logo based on this card. This would seem to be a reasonal proposition for any show where the title card visuals are not itself the subject of discussion but we still want the identifying image. This would work for many series (for example, Star Trek: The Original Series) where an SVG logo version of the show title can be made freely as replacement. There are arguably cases where even though the show's title is easily replaceable by a font that there's aspects of the background visuals that are important to include (I was about to point to The Simpsons where the effect of the title coming through the clouds is often-parodied but even that article doesn't use the title card). I do note that this seems to be more the case for newer shows where there are digital assets (like Monk (TV series) and House M.D., so I see no reason why we can't also do this for older shows as long as we can create the nice clean SVG image of the titles.

Because many of these title cards are old (pre-2008) I don't think we would immediately rush to remove but as long as no one sees an issue with calling the free SVG versions of titles as equivalent replacement for the non-free title cards (with appropriate exceptions), this should be something we can start approaching. --MASEM (t) 16:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine enough to me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I could not be more on board. See my rather lengthy comment about it here (from when you asked in January 2012): Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 2#Series infobox images_- logos over interstitial titles. Suffice to say: if the property has an overarching logo that can be extracted and made libre, it should always be done over using a copyrighted screenshot. — fourthords | =Λ= | 23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As a note, if this change is acceptable, then the WP:TV project's MOS should be updated to encourage the use of free SVGs of just text logos for TV shows (with help from the Graphics Lab to make these if necessary). The current version [2] only considers the use of title cards. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe titlecard screenshots should be as used on the show to identify the show as the makers intended. Shows often have a unique typeface. The Golden Girls example looks to have been made by just blanking out the background and keeping a copyrighted typeface, I may be wrong and someone can tell me what publically available typeface has been used.REVUpminster (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• That typeface isn't copyrighted. The font isn't creative or original enough to be copyrighted. Even that font of "Harry Potter" isn't original or creative enough to be copyrighted because... it's American. --George Ho (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• (ec) SVGs don't have to have the exact font to recreate the title font (though of course it helps if it can). An editor can "trace" over the letters to make the text-only version. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Another thing: there have been so many title cards of one show. For example, Frasier has too many different title cards because every episode begins with plain or humourous gag along with title logo. --George Ho (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• No one has tried it for Superman and all the related articles or does the TM mark put people off. Non free images in use on all the articles. As I said potential edit wars everywhere. REVUpminster (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• the Superman logo is already created... as non-free. Look, I don't think we must a big fuss about title cards, do we? Text-only logos are good and free enough to use. And I'm sure that you or anyone else will accept the use of free material and overcome non-free material, right? --George Ho (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it legal because someone has omitted the trademark. Even the porn parodies of superman don't use it. They do not worry about Batman or Batgirl because they don't carry the mark. Zorro Inc will sue if you use their Logo although they never objected when Wikipedia had an article on the company before another editor deleted the article. REVUpminster (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Text only logos in infoboxes serve no useful purpose. The font is only one tiny part of the title card. If we use only text only logos we may as well use none at all and just use the infobox title, which serves the same purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree shows like Inspector Morse (TV series) has no titlecard because it is just the words on a black background. The spin off Lewis (TV series) which has the same style of titlecard, editors have used the dvd cover, second choice in the MOS.REVUpminster (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, using recognizable logos do, like Can this logo help you recognize the show? --George Ho (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Friends

Yes, because it says "Three's Company", which is a pretty good hint at what the show is. The font has little to do with it. Guess what show this infobox is for. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny Face

What about this one? Can you actually figure what this refers to? I guess I don't need to give out a logo, do I? --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you don't need a logo and one isn't used in the article. A title card, or photo of the cast would be a help though. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The choice of font in show titles can be part of the show's recognizability. Eg, the modern examples of Monk and House MD are free but distinct and trademarked. What's going on behind these logos (the part that really is non-free) rarely is the subject of discussion and thus typically ignored. (A counter example is such as in Fringe where the tint of the title sequence has been noted in reliable sources as part of the show's mythos). --MASEM (t) 17:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Another problem with generic titles is remakes ie Hawaii Five-0 and Hawaii Five-O REVUpminster (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see any problem if we replaced both with the respective text-only images. There's no special distinction here. Remember, rarely are a show's title called out in sources in any way, and we're only including them per WP:NFCI#1 as identification of the show, that identification is there irregardless if there's a background image or not. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Surely your experience with featured articles that would be ruined if the Logo approach was taken to the infobox image. REVUpminster (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No, never seen that the case, when we are simply talking about a text-only logo atop generic imagery. There might be the case of something like the image for Family Ties where there is something else that adds to the image (this case, a picture of the cast), but the bulk of shows do not have such elements. Since this removes a non-free with a free, this would make the chances of passing at FAC much better. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Ōkami BioShock The World Ends with You Braid (video game) Rock Band (video game) Gears of War. all of these and more could fall foul of your reasoning but I am not a deletionist as I think it would detract from the article but there are many on the review page that would differ. REVUpminster (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
          • All of these have background images that can be used to avoid additional non-free content (eg character images). Further, these are static images, meaning that the placement of all the elements have been carefully picked for marketing purposes. For these TV shows, the logo is happening over moving images and rarely there's any composition effects in place. (Plus resorting to attacking others' articles via WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor tactic). --MASEM (t) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
      • All I am pointing out is what is good for one infobox is good enough for all and there should be a consistent approach to non free for TV, films, comics, books, video games etc even when it is our own articles, but deletionists rule on Wikipedia. REVUpminster (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Can you at least explain why a non-free title card is "irreplaceable"? "Contextually significant"? --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• It comes down to previous debates as to why have infoboxes for articles in the first place. Infoboxes give a summary of what is in the main body of the article which an index also does. and an image should at least convey the reader they are in the right place and Wikipedia is not a text only encyclopedia. A screenshot titlecard is the preferred method in the MOS just as a film poster or comic cover is the first choice in their respective infoboxes. It is just consistency I want wether its the most insignificant programme or high profile like Star Trek, Dr Who who have editors far more able than myself to defend use of non-free. My attitude is if the copyright holder objects then it is taken down. In 30 years Wikipedia if it is still going might be the only source of this information. REVUpminster (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

Hi all! There is a discussion open at Talk:The Big Bang Theory that is related to content in the Critical Reaction section of this article. I was hoping to get some community members to take a look at the exchange, then weigh in. Here's the first edit of about four total edits: The Big Bang Theory. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Our Friends in the North's FAR

I have nominated Our Friends in the North for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 21:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Refer to all non-broadcast television services as "networks" and not "channels"

The use of the term "channel" to refer to cable television networks is technically inaccurate. A network refers to a stream of programming. A TV channel is the number or frequency that a network is carried on. The term "channel" still works for OTA stations because they are channels (NBC, CBS, and the like are networks, not channels).

We should really go through any article that incorrectly uses "channel" in this fashion and fix them. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Boomerang (Australia)"

The usage of Boomerang (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Boomerang (Australian TV channel) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Boomerang (Latin America)"

The usage of Boomerang (Latin America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is up for discussion, see Talk:Boomerang (Latin American TV channel) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Community input requested: Dispute Resolution Noticeboard - Broadchurch

Hi all, your voice is requested at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard on the subject of the TV Series Broadchurch. Super-summarized: Should spoilers be cut from the Character synopsis section where unsuspecting readers might encounter them? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Community input requested: Dispute at The Big Bang Theory

Hi, input from the community is requested for an active dispute at Talk:The Big Bang Theory.

Argument against status quo: Current language in Critical Reception section asserts that critical response to the series improved over the years. The baseline metric is an aggregated Metacritic score. Subsequent reviews are individual, cherrypicked reviews that may or may not be representative of how most reviewers felt over time. The claim that critical response improved, is not expressly stated in any of the reviews, therefore the claim constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and should be cut. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there consensus regarding series end dates and "last_aired" parameter?

Hi, there still seems to be confusion about the correct application of series end dates, and specifically with the "last_aired" parameter in TV infoboxes. Kids' television networks don't always announce a proper "cancellation" of a series the way major networks do. This creates confusion among the chillruns and others, who add unsourced series end dates based on what they perceive to be the end of the series. (There was such an edit-war happening at Secret Mountain Fort Awesome recently.) Sometimes the additions are intuitive and reasonable, (ex. If a series hasn't aired any new episodes in 1 1/2 years) but they are still unsourced. How should I be approaching these as an article maintainer? Do we maintain that the series end date is always "present" unless a source explicitly states that a series has been cancelled? Are we allowed to deduce that a show has been cancelled if a pick-up was not announced at the next "Upfront"? Is there another technique we should be using? Having an answer to this question (and preferably having it somewhere easily-accessible like in the MOS:TV would be very helpful to those who maintain pages and such.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Channel vs Network

See Talk:TNT (TV channel) where the name of the article is under discussion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting FA review for C-SPAN

Greetings, WikiProject Television! As I mentioned in a previous message on this Talk page, I have been working for a while now to improve the C-SPAN article with hopes of bringing it up to FA status. I recently submitted this article at WP:FAC and am looking for editors who are interested in reviewing this and adding to the conversation on the FAC page.

As before, I would like to make clear that I am a consultant to C-SPAN, so my work on this article has been done in accordance with Jimbo's advisory to COI editors, as explained in his Paid Advocacy FAQ. This means I have avoided, and will continue to avoid, direct edits to the article. For this reason I hope all editors will feel welcome to make changes directly to the article.

If you are interested, the FAC discussion can be found here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

List of multimedia franchises‎

You might be interested in this list, as it includes multimedia franchises with television components. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Year in season heading

Apologizes if this has been discussed before. When having a heading for episodes, either on a List of page or if there is not one yet, in the main article, when is it appropriate to add the year for the TV season? Example: Parks and Recreation is entering its 6th season for the upcoming 2013-14 TV schedule. Currently on the List of episodes page, the heading for season 6 just says "Season 6". I was always under the impression, per WP:CRYSTAL, that the date should not be added until episodes have aired in that TV season, even if reliable sources say that the show will be airing in that season. (And only when it does air, will "2013" be added, and then "2014" when an episode airs in that year.) Is this thinking correct, and if so, is there anywhere in this WikiProject or the MOS:TV that states this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't state anything about it, but that has generally been my response. Anything can happen to cancel a show, so even a reliable source saying "it will air" doesn't mean that nothing could prevent it from airing. Once it airs, then you add the date. Otherwise, to a reader coming to the page it seems like it's already started airing until they get down the section and realize that it's a future date. Things get pushed back all the time. I cannot count how many times films say "they will be released on data Y" and then a few months later you get "it's been pushed back 2 months". It happens in TV shows as well (not as often, but it does happen).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts and reasonings as well. I understand that logic completely. Just because it says it is going to air on X date, so many variables, while mostly unlikely, can occur to change that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated many times before, WP:CRYSTAL refers to unverifiable information: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable." The premiere date of Parks and Recreation season six is properly referenced from many reliable sources so a question of verification in not in question. "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." Again, it's verified. What CRYSTAL mostly discourages is unsourced material or scheduled events that take place far in the future, i.e. the 2028 Presidential Election. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Almost certain to take place is the key argument here. There is no reason at all to expect the premiere to be delayed until 2014. Of course it could happen, in the same way that anything could happen. By your logic, we shouldn't include upcoming scheduled events because it's possible, however unlikely, that North Korea will nuke us all before it can take place, or Jesus will return and bring the rapture on our asses. It is completely reasonable and reliable to assume that an event of this nature, which has been carefully planned and widely advertised, will take place. A similar discussion about including upcoming episodes was debated a few years back on the final season of Medium ([3]) where an editor insisted that upcoming episodes not be included at all, not matter how well sourced, just in case something derailed its broadcast. While I understand the impulse for thinking this was, the logic of it is fundamentally flawed for one reason: Wikipedia is so easy to change. This isn't the IMDb where updates can take days of even weeks to be processed. We can change things instantly. If for some unforeseen reason the P-Rex premiere is pushed back, we can find a new source and update the information in a matter of seconds. Here's the problem as I see it: the two of you are adding your own personal analyses and opinions to a rule that provides insufficient guidelines to back up your claims. "It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." That is exactly what this is. A prediction, properly referenced by reliable, expert sources (i.e. NBC, the network that broadcasts P-Rex) about a scheduled event. This is not wild, unsourced speculation. This is a textbook example of what can be included. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was not about what information to include, it was about how to handle headers for an article. This has nothing to do with what information you put in the article, but HOW it is put in the article. With regard to headers, it's best not to include dates until things actually air.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And why is it best not to include it? Because you think so? This is exactly my point. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with including years in the season headings before they've actually aired because it's sourced information about a scheduled event and not unverified speculation. You and Favre1fan93 keep citing WP:CRYSTAL as if it actually backs you up on this, when there are multiple passages that encourage the opposite of your position. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, because it's good practice. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least have the facts to back it up. I've not said anything about "CRYSTAL". I don't bring it up, nor did I acknowledge it in my response. The fact is that the headers for previous seasons are indicating when a show has aired, not when it WILL air. It becomes convoluted when you're including past and future dates in headers like that when it's not clear how it is being used. Best practice would say not to include them till they air. We do the same thing when it comes to actors. We don't includ them in certain lists until they've actually met the criteria to be include, regardless of what someone says. Yes, we can change things on a fly, as you pointed out....we're also not in any rush. Wikipedia is NOT a news source, we're here to collect information from an historical perspective, not from a current events perspective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I had always thought that CRYSTAL was the proper policy for this, as it was the best I could find that applied. Maybe I was wrong in that, and applied it incorrectly, but I am still in agreement with Bignole, and his reasonings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Season in progress

What about when the season starts as expected and is in progress? Do we put ===Season 3 (2013–)===?––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put the hyphen, just the year, but the hyphen is a subjective call. More shows get cancelled mid season than anything. Once it airs in the new year, then add that year.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd always use the "–" so it doesn't look like it's finished, but in the end as long as there's not a "?" after the "–" I'd be happy. BTW: Thanks for the fast reply. :)––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 22:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

An endash with no following year is effectively the same as saying "–present" so "2013–" is saying "2013–present". Since it's presently 2013, that's the same as "2013–2013" which is redundant. There's really no need for the endash until episodes are scheduled to air, or have aired in 2014, at which point the title becomes "2013–14", or "2013/14". --AussieLegend (✉) 02:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. "2013–", to me, means "2013 to unknown [aka present]". Just saying "2013", to me, means "it only happened in 2013 and is finished." The "present" (or equivalent) is needed to show it is ongoing. Besides, it is standard practice to have "Month DD, YYYY–present" in the infobox. (template:infobox television)––Ɔ Ȿ♭ ௵ ☎ ℡ ☎ 03:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

What you've said is pretty much what I said, except for "is finished". It's correct that it means "it only happened in 2013", but "is finished" is not a correct interpretation. It just means that episodes have only been scheduled or aired in 2013. The situation with {{Infobox television}} is different because there we specify actual dates, not just a general year. "January 1, 2013 - present" doesn't mean "January 1, 2013 - January 1, 2013" unless it's actually January 1, 2013. Instead it means January 1, 2013 - today's date, ie "January 1, 2013 - April 26, 2024". --AussieLegend (✉) 04:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I already understood your explanation; I guess I wasn't clear. I was just making a distinction between "2013" meaning "started this year and has finished" v. "2013-" (or – or whatever) meaning "started this year and is ongoing but has not spilled into 2014 yet". I was trying to say that I prefer "2013—" when the show's ongoing so any reader can tell at a glance that it's the current season in progress.––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 23:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

There really isn't any distinction to be made between the two, per AussieLegend's reasonings. So, for example, all the show starting up this week and next week, will, and should, just get "2013" added to their headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I'm fine with that. I guess my idea's a bit much.––Ɔ Ȿ♭ இ ☎ ℡ ☎ 21:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

21st-century Indian television actors

Category:21st-century Indian television actresses, which relates to this project, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series Screen Actors Guild Award winners

Category:Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Drama Series Screen Actors Guild Award winners, which is related to this project, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 23#File:El Chacal.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 September 23#File:El Chacal.jpg. -- Trevj (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Breaking Bad characters

I was wondering if anyone was interested in aiding in the cleanup and expansion of the Breaking Bad character articles. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Template:Infobox television

Hello WikiProject Television. I've made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox television that we get rid of the poorly-defined, ambiguous, deprecated {{format}} parameter. If you have thoughts about this, please express them at Template talk:Infobox television#Format vs Genre: The Final Battle!. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Cast Name Change

Hi all! Your opinions would be welcome at the Doctor Who talk page, where a discussion is ongoing regarding how we should refer to an actor who has changed their name. The hold up is that the name change occurred after the last episode of the latest series, so we've not reached consensus on whether we should reflect the change prior to the on-screen credits also change. Thanks in advance!  drewmunn  talk  13:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change episode naming conventions

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of changing the titling style for television episodes, located here. All are welcome to join! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)

Hi all, just wanted to notify you all of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Proposal to change episode naming conventions that will affect articles within the scope of this project. –anemoneprojectors– 11:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A series of telefilms is ...

See Talk:Jane Doe (TV film series) where we are discussing what is the way to refer to a series of telefilms -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Tomorrow People"

The usage of The Tomorrow People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:The Tomorrow People -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WT:DAB#Proposal for a new rule for media adaptations and multimedia franchises

Proposal to establish new guideline on treating franchises, characters, and such as broad concepts or primary topics is made. Feel free to weigh in. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Joanie in the original version of the Happy Days episode "All the Way"

Who played Joanie in the original version of this episode, seen here? I am looking to include her name in Happy Days articles. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

+The Beverly Hillbillies (season 1), The Beverly Hillbillies (season 2) and many others

StewieBaby05 has a history of spliting episode lists out into season articles without adding content. I have attempted to defend the notable seasons that that represent the following acclaims: {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama}}, {{GoldenGlobeTVDrama}}, {{EmmyAward DramaSeries}}, {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVComedy}}, {{GoldenGlobeTVComedy}}, {{EmmyAward ComedySeries}} and {{TopUSTVShows}}. I have not attempted to defend any of his other seasons and it seemed to be an equilibrium with an occaisional need for reversion when a whole set of seasons gets deleted. The latest among these is seasons 1 and 2 of The Beverly Hillbillies. This needs discussion so that I am not spending time saving 100 pages on each individual talk page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Add to this articles like Six Feet Under (season 1), Six Feet Under (season 2) and Six Feet Under (season 3). In all of the cases where StewieBaby05 has split episode lists, the season articles end up simply duplicating the existing episode list articles, with no additional content other than an infobox. Such was the case with the three articles I've mentioned. The main episode list does not link to the season articles. Historically what has happened when this occurs is that the season articles and main list get out of sync and then somebody has to come along later and clean up the mess, ending up with what is usually a substandard article. Regardless of whether or not the seasons are notable (more notable?) than others, TonyTheTiger's restorations have merely resulted in a series of orphaned season articles that act as a place to put the templates he is advocating. These could easily be included on the main episode list page, so there is really no justification for the retention of these pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

From my experience, the dichotomy of having a list of episodes and then individual seasons (for notable series, with plot-driven episodes but not something along the lines of soap operas where its better to talk the overarching plot) seems common enough; the list should not include plot summaries, though can briefly touch the main points of plot, casting, etc. for each season, and then have the season articles give brief episode descriptions. The overall list and the season lists can share the same sources - for example, List of Fringe episodes transcludes each season episode list, with appropriate flags to "turn off" the plot summaries within the episode list. Yes, simply splitting off season articles with just the episode list isn't helpful - the season articles should call out to broadcast info, casting and direction (including any changes), and broad plot summaries, and if the season is on DVD or other release, some reception about it, while the list article should summarize broadcast information . So the question is, is there anything really "wrong" with, say, The Beverly Hillbillies (season 1) short of lack of potential content that can be added? --MASEM (t) 16:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As you've said "simply splitting off season articles with just the episode list isn't helpful". Without the additional content that you've suggested there simply is no benefit to splitting the lists. It just makes readers have to look in multiple places for minimal information. Some programs attract editors who happily build season articles. Some don't, and The Beverly Hillbillies is one of those. The episode list article is seven years old but it wasn't until December 2012 that somebody came along and cleaned it up. Since then there has been little activity[4] so it's unlikely that it will get much beyond its present state. The episode summaries are generally one or two lines, so it doesn't hurt to have the episode summaries in the list article. Using a very loose definition of readable prose (one that ignores that almost all of the actual prose is in the tables) there is only 28kB, well within WP:SIZERULE's rule of thumb that articles with less han 40KB of readable prose shouldn't be split on size alone. So yes, the big problem is the lack of content in the season articles. However, the bigger problem is that the articles that TonyTheTiger is restoring are not transcluded back to the main episode list. They're simply being restored so a navbox can be added to them, a navbox that could happily exist in the main episode list article. The episode list articles don't even acknowledge the presence of the season articles so they're effectively orphaned. And there's consistency - having random, orphaned season articles existing somewhere doesn't make a lot of sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I do believe that if someone put effort, the example season articles can be improved, even if we're talking relatively routine information to be added, but I understand the point of just mechanically doing the split and not taking the effort to "complete" it. If someone did do the split and at least did the basics to get the linking and trasclusion right (so that the season articles are listed in the episode list, and etc, eg the core of the List of Fringe episodes, I wouldn't see that as a problem even if the rest of the information is lacking. But if I understand the splits being done here correctly, its a half-effort and would agree that's like only doing half the steps in a page move and letting someone clean up afterwards. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not just the splits that are the issue here, it's the restoration of season articles once the "half-effort" splits have been reverted. The season articles then exist only so the navbox can be added to them and for no other reason. TonyTheTiger believes that if the articles exist with the navbox in them, that's going to encourage somebody to expand the article but realistically, that's not going to happen. We used to have {{Expand}} specifically to encourage people to expand articles and look how well that worked. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been supporting StewieBaby05 by figuring out which ones are historically notable and including them in the templates. I think the "half-effort" splits help in the context of these templates. I brought the discussion here to see where consensus is. Obviously, StewieBaby05 believes in all of his templates. I believe in the notable ones and Masem believes in basic templates. I am quite sure Aussie is not alone becuase others are reverting without discussing here. I am just not sure where consensus is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that your restorations have been reverted by multiple editors, it would seem that that consensus is against these orphaned season articles. I really don't understand why you can't add your navbox to the main episode lists instead of restoring the season articles just so the navbox can reside there. I've mentioned this option several times but you've yet to respond. Yes, StewieBaby05 does believe in his splits but his splits have been reverted so many times that it's clear many others don't. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Another of the problems with StewieBaby05's splits is that he doesn't bother attributing the content that he's copied and pasted, as is required. Almost all of the articles that he's created require tagging with {{CWW}}. Although he's previously been directed to WP:SPLIT, I don't think he's ever bothered following the link. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The long and the short of it is that I feel we are holding his splits to a different standard than other articles that are evaluated at WP:AFD. It seems that AFD has evolved to the point where it determines whether an article should exist. Articles that have various tags indicating deficiencies like, needs formatting, orphan status, citations needed for verification and the like are not considered reasons to delete or redirect (as I understand it). Thus, I continue to defend the articles that depict distinguished seasons as those that should exist and should not be deleted/redirected.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Why am I getting the feeling that people like SchrutedIt08 and QuasyBoy are setting this up for some sort of a WP:3RR debate at individual pages rather than forming a consensus here?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We're not holding Stewie's edits to any different standard. While you mention AfD, you haven't actually shown any examples. Can you please provide some examples? As for QuasyBoy and SchrutedIt08, they seem to be editing in accordance with standard practice. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this comes back again to my point: there is no reason not to expect that we can reasonably have the list and season articles for these shows at the end of the day. Yes, splitting them out can be messy, but they are articles that would likely exist for these series. I can understand that there may be cases for shows where consensus has decided not to split out the seasons, and of course we should respect that, but this is more the exception to the rule. If an editor splits off seasons from a list article, even doing a half-job, it makes no sense to reject that move since it is a general improvement overall in most cases. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If the articles were split out with appropriate additions, as you've mentioned above, there would be no opposition, but the articles have been split out without proper attribution, which is a licensing problem, and we're doing readers a big disservice by forcing them to look in 10 short articles for content that can, and did, happily exist in one. It's especially difficult for sight impaired readers who have enough trouble navigating articles as it is. It makes no sense to do this, especially when it's highly unlikely that the articles will be expanded. Articles should be split out when there is additional content that can't be included in the main article, not in the hope that one day somebody might expand them. If we do this we're treating TV seasons differently to every other subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs)

Lack of attribution is absolutely a problem - but fixable. But the other aspect is, like, for example with the Beverly Hillbilllies episodes, our policies would certainly allow a slightly long plot synopsis (like: 5-6 lines) which would flood a full list-of-episodes articles while would be easy to edit in season form. And again, I point out that with the episode list templates and translocation, the content only existed in one place and transcluded to the season article. So from a practical standpoint, the splitting out is really not an issue, as it is all fixable and likely something that would be a waypoint on the way to completing the content in the first place.

That said, I would say that if the editor is breaking these out repeated without doing any of the attribution work, that is a behavior problem, one that they don't immediately cooperate, would likely require an RFC/U to address further. But if they are breaking these out and doing at least the attribution, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, as there is no apparent consensus against that. --MASEM (t) 17:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I gave StewieBaby05 a {{Uw-copying}} and an additional message. Considering his long period of unresponsiveness (User talk:StewieBaby05#Splitting articles, March 2013) and the many unattributed season articles created (well over 100 total, spot-checks found none attributed), I will report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ over WP:Requests for comment/User conduct if the edit summary problem is not remedied rapidly. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that StewieBaby05 has been receiving warnings since he first started splitting articles without discussion or explanation in September 2012.[5] His early "participation" on talk pages was to move them, agin without any discussion. It wasn't until May 2013 that he actually participatedin a discussion.[6] He claims to have two previous accounts,[7] and both have had numerous warnings. That he still receives numerous warnings 5 1/2 years after his first edits should be of concern. --09:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If the edit summaries were longer then that might be a reason to split the article in accordance with WP:SIZERULE, but we're not there yet, not by any means. At the moment, the epsiodes average only 18 words per episode, for a total of 28kb of readable prose. If the summaries were all at the 200 word maximum set by the MOS, the main list would have to be split but there's no reason yet. Yes, it is all fixable but the problem is, it isn't being fixed. TonyTheTiger has categorically stated that he has no intention of expanding the articles; Will you? Stewie has been directed to WP:SPLIT in the past but he refuses to comply, and generally doesn't want to discuss. In his wake he's leaving a huge mess of articles that there really is no justification in creating. Redirecting or deleting the split out articles is the only way to manage the problem because there just aren't enough editors on Wikipedia to mop up after Stewie, and with TonyTheTiger helping him, it's only getting worse. And again, there is the unhelpful effect on our readers. Regarding one point, "the content only existed in one place and transcluded to the season article" you seem to have this in reverse. With the splits the content is in 10 places (the main episode list still has to be included) and is transcluded back to the episode lits, not the season articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be describing the transclusion approach wrong. Again, look at List of Fringe episodes and Fringe (Season 1); the overall episode list transcludes the season articles (you are stating the reverse); the season article uses the appropriate 'includeonly' tags so that only the episode list is brought into overall list article. So, for Fringe, there 5 separate article lists (one per season) that are duplicated into the main episode list, but there is only one editable location for a specific episode within these, that being on the article that the episode airs. And to hide the episode list descriptions, the various episode templates have logic in them when used within the longer overall list.

But to the main issue: the way I see what is happening, as long as we are talking about a notable series with more than a few seasons where, if full episode descriptions were included, would make the list of articles too large, we eventually will have individual season articles. These, for all purposes, are equivalent to stubs in their reason to exist - they need editor help and attention, but they don't harm WP in any way - unless of course, editor consensus has determined otherwise that the single long episode article is the better approach for a given show, but I'm assuming that's not the case in general. So I'm not seeing how this is a huge problem as long as the editors doing the split are at least 1) doing proper attribution 2) making sure the transclusion between overall lists and season lists works right and 3) making sure make linkages aren't broken from redirection pages. Now whether they make the effort to fill out the episode descriptions, add background, premise, casting, direction, and reception sections, or all that, that's less an issue, in my opinion, since that's something that would still have to be fixed on the overall list of episodes in time. Again, I do point out that failure to do the minimal requirements of attribution and the like is a problem and addressed through behavior resolution, but otherwise someone doing the minimal work in good faith is not something to get as antsy about as this conversation suggests.

In other words, the general practice of splitting out season articles from the overall list is really not a problem as long as fundamental work is done appropriate, based on all current practices and guidelines. But not doing that fundamental work is an issue to be resolved with the editor. --MASEM (t) 18:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"You seem to be describing the transclusion approach wrong" - Umm no, I'm saying exactly what happens with the Fringe articles. You said "transcluded to the season article", when it's actually transcluded to the main episode list.

"there is only one editable location for a specific episode within these, that being on the article that the episode airs" - that's correct, but because we don't transclude the episode summaries, a reader searching for a particular episode summary often has to look in multiple places to find the summary if they can't remember which season they're looking for.

"where, if full episode descriptions were included, would make the list of articles too large, we eventually will have individual season articles" - Yes, that's the case but, we're not working to a deadline so we don't need to create stubs in the expectation that they'll be filled out one day. Instead, as we do with every other article, we split articles when there is sufficient content to justify a split.

"I'm assuming that's not the case in general." - The general case is per MOS:TV#Multiple pages. "For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists." Note that the MOS says "may" not "will". We still take into account WP:SIZERULE. If there isn't sufficient content to justify a split, we don't.

"I'm not seeing how this is a huge problem as long as the editors " - Wikipedia is written for readers, not editors. Sight impaired readers have enough trouble navigating as is, we shouldn't force them to have to look in multiple articles unless there is good justification. Even readers without accessibility problems shouldn't have to look in multiple articles unless necessary. For a comparison, look at a non-TV episode list article like Australia. It has 120kB of readable prose and we haven't split it up into multiple individual articles, transcluding everything as we do with episode lists. Instead we break out articles as necessary but we maintain a central article with a reasonable amount of content. The Fringe articles are an example of how we do this. There is way too much content to keep in one article, but this isn't the case for The Beverley Hillbillies and similar articles where there is virtually no content.

"someone doing the minimal work in good faith is not something to get as antsy about as this conversation suggests." - Actually, editors have been able to manage the Stewie problem until now. His splits are regularly reverted, there seems to be wide agreement that this is the right thing to do. The problem here is actually only TonyTheTiger's insistence on keeping the "notable" season articles active as a place to put the navboxes that he's promoting. He has stated no opposition to seasons 3-9 being deleted/redirected.[8][9] Keeping articles just so a navbox can be located there makes no sense. As I've said umpteeen times, strangely without any opposition, the navboxes could be placed in the main episode list, instead of random, orphaned season articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There may not be content, but there can be content. Even without digging for sources, it's probably relatively easy to argue that each season of most of these shows are notable, but just needs the work to flesh them out. That's why I'm having a hard time seeing how the net result (if it were done properly) is something to complain about for these major series. Mind you, I'm on board that I wouldn't split before it was necessary, but if someone made the effort to get all the season splits done right with attribution, and possibly some sourcing, it's seems silly to get all flustered over that. I fully recognize that here we are talking about a problem editor that has done these splits without the attribution before, been cautioned against them, etc, and so there's a whole bunch of behavior problems involved. But if it was a well-intentioned editor that followed the process to split, by the book, would that be a problem? --MASEM (t) 06:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, the main problem here is not the splits, as editors have generally found ways of managing them. The problem is that TonyTheTiger wants to restore random articles simply as a place to keep his navboxes. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that if one season is split out from an overall episode list, all the other seasons should be too, and thus the onus on making sure all those splits are done correctly are on the person that wants it. To only split out one or two seasons just to add a navtemplate is not appropriate (there's other ways to apply that template). But if one does split out all those seasons with all the proper work done for attribution and the like, I'm not sure if there's really an appropriate need to revert that. (This is not the case for Stewie's splits, as I understand above.) --MASEM (t) 15:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless the seasons article are going to expand up content that is not already included in the list of episodes page, the article is unnecessary and is just duplication of content. It makes navigating very cumbersome when you have to look through 8 or 9 different articles just view an episode summary, which were originally all under one article. I'm pretty much in agreement with what AussieLegend is saying. Most of us agree that the navbox isn't justification enough to keep an essentially empty article. The navbox already appears in all the main articles for TV series that have won said awards, so I don't see how that's an issue. The second issue is WP:SPLIT, which most of these articles don't meet as the amount of readable prose is not enough to warrant a split. The main problem here is the editor, StewieBaby05, who has continually demonstrated no effort to communicate or to show he's interested in actually creating an article that isn't just arbitrarily copying and pasting an episode list and adding an infobox and calling it a day. If there is any other information on the page, it's just time slot or DVD info, which is either already included in the infobox or included in the list of episodes page. It's all duplicated content. Here is a list of all the article's he's created. Here's some of his first season articles: The Dick Van Dyke Show (season 1), Leave It to Beaver (season 6), Newhart (season 1). All those were created earlier this year (January to March), and you can tell he creates them and never touches them again, nor does anyone else really. These haven't been expanded upon in over 9 months and more likely never will. The majority of articles created are for older shows (60s, 70s, 80s), which for the most part aren't going to have much production or reception information available. The fact is, none of these 100 or so season articles have been remotely touched within the last year. It'd be a different story if other editors over time started to expand them, but that's not the case. The only reason to keep any of these if there is a size issue on the list of episodes page. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: TV network categories

Hi, I've seen a bunch of TV-related articles where users have added the article to various categories, for example, here or [10], where users have added various shows to networks that didn't produce the show, but only air it, in this case, Jetix, Fox, Cartoon Network, YTV, etc. Is this an appropriate use for the categories, or should Category:Jetix only include shows that network Jetix produces? I don't know what documentation I should read that would explain that. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xiomara Gonzalez Govea

Hello, television experts! This submission at Afc has been waiting a long time for a review. Can anyone help?—Anne Delong (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been declined now. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger Requests for Comment (RfC)

1) Discussion of >>>Dukes, Here<<<; regarding the proposal to merge the following into The Dukes of Hazzard: Cooter Davenport; Abraham Lincoln Hogg; and Boss Hogg; All into the The Dukes of Hazzard. Reason: "none given."

2) Discussion of >>>Dark, Here<<< regarding the proposal to merge the following into List of Dark Shadows characters: Carolyn Stoddard; Daniel Collins (Dark Shadows); Andreas Petofi; and Angelique Bouchard Collins; Reason: "none given."

3) >>>Baywatch: Mitch Discussion Here<<< reason: "Mitch Buchannon should be merged into List of Baywatch characters."

4) >>>Baywatch: CJ Discussion Here<<< reason: "CJ Parker should be merged into List of Baywatch characters."

Additional input needed at these discussion pages. Please re-post as necessary. Thank you, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I need a reliable source to add information to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 2), and I want to know if this would be a reliable source: http://nickalive.blogspot.ca/2013/11/sneak-peek-of-brand-new-teenage-mutant.html. XXX8906 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

By general rule, blogs are not considered reliable sources of information. That does not mean that it does not contain reliable sources within it's posts. For instance, I see that it is quoting an article from IGN UK, and IGN is considered a reliable source. Thus, using the IGN (original source) is fine.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Replace DVD covers with available season premiere ads?

My proposal to replace title cards with more substantial images was a failure. That aside, I think the administrators still have access to deleted images, like promo ads. I have Cheers (season 1) and Cheers (season 6) using DVD covers, but I'm planning to request undeletion of promo ads that I previously used for Give Me a Ring Sometime and Home Is the Sailor (Cheers). If Lost (season 1) can use the series premiere promo ad, then Cheers season 1 should. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As should be very obvious from the discussion above, there is no support for using promo ads in infoboxes. By convention we use DVD/Blu-ray cover art in season articles when available. Cheers seasons 1-8 all use DVD cover art in the infoboxes. There is no logical reason to ignore the convention and replace the cover art with promo ads, especially when promo ads have received no support above and have actually been deleted as the result of an FFD discussion that you initiated. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with AussieLegend. The place for promo ads is in the production section if you can get it past the NFC editors. I suspect this is where George Ho would like them but I have had trouble with promo cast photos, and wallpaper for desktops freely given out by production companies that have been objected to and removed.REVUpminster (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So must I replace Lost promos with DVD covers? George Ho (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Star Trek for peer review

• Portal:Star Trek

Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and myself have put Portal:Star Trek up for peer review.

We'd appreciate helpful feedback, at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Star Trek/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Portrayal of Joanie in the first Happy Days episode

Was the version of the Happy Days episode "All the Way", with Louise Foley as Joanie, the version that aired on January 15, 1974, or was it just an unaired demo? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Footage of the dinner table scene can be seen here and the closing credits here. Was this version with Louise Foley as Joanie aired on January 15, 1974, or an unaired demo version? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

"Soprano Home Movies" FAR

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Soprano Home Movies/archive1 - notifying this project as this is an episode a television series. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Black Entertainment Television

I don't think many sources use this title nowadays. Shall I propose a parenthetical disambiguation, like "BET (TV channel)", move it now, or leave it as is? --George Ho (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Days theme on season 2 DVDs

The article about Happy Days states that "Rock Around the Clock" is not used for the opening on season 2 DVDs because of music rights issues. What seems odd to me is that "Rock Around the Clock" is used for the season 1 DVDs and season 2 episodes in syndication, but not the season 2 DVD release. It doesn't make sense to me that it is due to music rights issues because it is used for season 1 DVDs and season 2 episodes in syndication. Does anyone know if this article is correct that it is about music rights issues? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Replacing title cards and logos with promo advertisements?

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.

---

Which image is more substantial to primarily identify a TV series: a promo advertisement, or a title card (or logo, free or un-free)? Many promo ads have cast members in them, but the logo or title card is a standard image at default currently. Sometimes, DVD cover is used, but is the box cover replaceable if the promo ad is found, scanned into computer, and uploaded? (Neutral as intended; non-neutral message shown in discussion) George Ho (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral message

I plan to replace the logo of 10 Things I Hate About You (TV series) with a promo ad of the series premiere, but I was recommend to discuss promo ads and title cards/logs here first. I've already done replacing title cards, banners, DVD covers, and logos with promo ads in Brandy & Ray J: A Family Business, The Lyon's Den, and such. Also, I added promo ads in The Tortellis, Atomic Twister, and other TV series and films that were missing an infobox image. I wouldn't call the stand-alone logo or the title card substantial, unless "memorable" (like Cheers or The Simpsons intertitle). The title logo (or card) usually omits the cast; even a free logo (like The Cosby Show) would be suitable for non-English Wikipedia pages that have very strict copyright rules (a Japanese wiki, for example, disallows non-free images). Modern Family has the promo image and the title logo, but I thought that the promo is more substantial than the free logo card. So I wonder if I could let the title logo/card be useable for non-English pages and use the promo image as the infobox image.

Okay, maybe I put too much in one paragraph, so I'll break things down into list:

1. Add a promo image to an infobox that has no image
2. Replace a less substantial title card (or logo) with a promo ad
3. Replace DVD cover with a promo ad

--George Ho (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Either "* '''support'''" or "* '''oppose'''", but add your comments in support of your vote.

• Oppose - By convention we use the title card of the TV program if it is available. The title card is the most visible identifier and is generally common to all English speaking countries in which the series has aired. Print adds, such as File:Brandy Ray J family business print ad.jpg are not. Using the title card ensures consistency. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - As far as main page infoboxes go, the title card is the best and the one most likely to be replaceable with a free version (as many shows are using title cards that contain plain text that can be recreated). With regard to season pages, unless you can get a promo "poster" (or ad, or whatever) for each season of the show, then I would say "no". DVD box art is typically used because you can consistently find it across seasons, and it serves the same purpose as the "promo ads" most of the time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't generally get involved in these RFCs but I have to oppose this one. I see the point about an ad, which generally will feature at least some of the cast, being more informative than a logo but in a well written article about a television show there are plenty of opportunities to put in a cast photo, many articles have a whole section wholly devoted to the cast and a promo shot is almost, but not quite, as good as a behind the scenes cast photo in that regard. In terms of blandness of many TV logos, yeah people are going to recognize the Simpson family on a couch more easily than some yellow letters in front of some clouds but at least for popular shows even a bland logo is recognizable and for most shows it provides enough information for someone to recognize that that their on the right page for the right show. Cat-fivetc ---- 07:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral See my comments below. I have seriously issues with the practicality of allowing both and I strongly favor a policy that heavily discourages the use of non-free content but it is also impractical to totally exclude promo/cast photos in the infobox/lead when there is no alternative. Cat-fivetc ---- 21:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Titlecards should be used in infoboxes as they are readily available as a screenshot. Where would you get publicity material for old tv programmes ie over 20 years old. I have done titlecards for programmes from the 50's and 60's where it is very difficult to find promo material. Cast photos can be used in the cast section or production section which could include promo material although you could fall foul of wiki deletionists who dominate the NFC rules. REVUpminster (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Should use the title card, not a promo.JOJ ^Hutton 23:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the reasons above me. As well, when displaying an image in the infobox, we are not there to advertising or promote the cast or a character, which most of these promos you are linking to are doing. I don't feel promos should be used at all for any show related article - title cards for the main article, DVD cover art for season pages, etc. Promo images should be used, if at all, in the article, but even then I don't see a reason why they should be in the article, unless possibly they showcase the cast, and it is being used for the cast section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• @AussieLegend: you mean TV series or made-for-TV movies? As for the revert you did, the prior image wasn't the screenshot. It was some online banner from defunct official website of the reality series. Print ads for made-for-TV movies, especially old ones, can be good alternatives in case that capturing the opening title into the computer is not possible. --George Ho (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @AussieLegend: That reality TV aside, what about my edits at The Lyon's Den, Growing Up Gotti image, The Whole Truth tv show, and Wizards and Warriors tv show? Are these title cards adequate enough, or promo ads (that include cast, or drawings of cast) readers learn about the television show? George Ho (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    • The title cards are preferable. Cast images should be placed in the cast section. This way we have consistency between articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Even when they are expanded, I don't think expansion can help justify the use of the title card besides being a mere visual identification, unless the title card is copyright-free. The title card helps readers recognize the series, but the cast photo can also help more if used as an infobox image, like Designing Women. Speaking of title cards, there are many opening titles of older series, like Three's Company, The Cosby Show, and Family Ties, and none of them is irreplaceable by a substantially-free logo. How do you place a cast photo in a very small page if the Cast section is small? And I'm not convinced that the title card alone would help readers learn about the television series, like The Whole Truth (TV series), which lasted just one season. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I made progress for Wizards and Warriors, but not enough for the second image. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
        • "The title card helps readers recognize the series" - This is exactly why we use them, they're supposed to be a visual identifier for the series. That's pretty much the reason for any infobox image. For example, File:Empire State Building from the Top of the Rock.jpg is used to visually identify the Empire State Building. It's not there to identify anybody associated with it. When we add images to articles we are supposed to place them in the relevant sections, not place them randomly around the articles. A cast photo therefore correctly belongs in the "cast" section, where an appropriate caption identifying the individual cast members can be included, such as in Friends or Lost. Such a caption is not generally appropriate in the infobox, where captions (like all other infobox information) should be brief, as the purpose of the infobox is to summarise. Placing cast photos in the infobox causes readers to have to skip around the article to compare prose descriptions to photos.

"I'm not convinced that the title card alone would help readers learn about the television series, like The Whole Truth (TV series), which lasted just one season." - Again, the purpose of the infobox image is really only to visually identify the subject, and the title card is the most common visual identifier. It's not there to explain multiple aspects of the subject. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Building is substantial enough; title card... is not. Title cards and buildings are incompatible and incomparable. I don't see why promo is too much, but you don't see title card as too little, do you? The Whole Truth promo has Maura Tierney and Rob Morrow, while the title card does not. If the casting of the series was not significantly covered, how can you expand the article further and find the cast photo? --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that: if you add the cast photo, you would risk infringing the copyrights of the American Broadcasting Company. You can yell out, "B@$t@rds!!" But I guess non-free situations are screwy. --George Ho (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Aussie Legend. Dracula (TV series) had a promo in the infobox.with the proviso in the rationale it would be replaced with a titlecard when available. There is an argument, I do not agree with it, that any articles should not have infoboxes as there is an index to the sections already, but Wikipedia is not text only. One problem you can get is Titlecard and cast changes. A titlecard change is easier to deal with using the first titlecard and the caption paremeter whereas with casts do you use the first cast or last cast.REVUpminster (talk)
  • How would File:Dracula promotional image.jpg be too much, while the lame title card is enough? The promo image has a face of the Dracula, while the title card does not. How can you place cast photo when the infobox interferes the prose? --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bignole: What about one-season series, like Baby Bob? Is promo ad appropriate? George Ho (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Masem and Bignole: At least series premiere ad and season six premiere ad of Cheers can replace DVD covers of Cheers (season 1) and Cheers (season 6), can't they? --George Ho (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Catfive: are you saying that a promo ad is substantial and good enough at default until an article is big enough to have a separate title card and a cast photo? Or are you saying: promo ad for small article, anything not a promo ad for a big article? Or what do you mean? In regards to amount of non-free photos, somehow one must abide to NFCC's Criterion 3a (minimal use). In other words, one conveying essentially equivalent information is enough. To make another image essentially different, information must be non-equivalent. But which one is truer: promo ad, or bunch of "non-equivalent" images in a very small article? George Ho (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @George Ho: First of all, just an fyi, you spelled my name wrong and it doesn't ping me unless you spell my name exactly as the account name is. Secondly, what I meant is that where possible both should be used but if an article is short enough to not warrant both then the title card should be used, both in the interest of minimizing the use of non-free content and because of the practical issues of getting cast photos for many shows, especially older shows (as pointed out by REVUpminster). There's also an issue of standardization in play, if title cards can be in every article and cast photos only in some then the priority should go to the standardized method so that articles can all have the same element in the same place. Cat-fivetc ---- 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
    • @Cat-five: Are you saying that promo ads of Baby Bob and Angel Street (TV series) should be deleted, even though there haven't been a title card each in the past? --George Ho (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
      • @George Ho: I think the better question is whether a policy can be crafted to encourage the use of title cards, only allowing cast photos in the infobox and/or lead section when no title card is available and/or the article size limits the options without creating a policy that is exploitable, not to mention utterly confusing and impossible to follow for people who want to, in good faith of course, put a descriptive image in an article? I'm not sure the answer is yes but I see your point about an all or nothing policy being unworkable. I'm sure there will be an uproar over any suggestion that appears to be too friendly to adding non-free content into articles though. Cat-fivetc ---- 21:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• @REVUpminster: I was going to ask you the same question about title cards. Regarding a 20-year-old show, I uploaded the promo ad and inserted it in Angel Street (TV series). I mean, where can you obtain a lame title card or logo for Angel Street? DVD? TV intros don't have Angel Street card. George Ho (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've looked for this show but except on Imdb...Nothing. I do not think it could have been shown here in the UK even with all our channels. Curb your Enthusiasm being shown here as a new show!!! REVUpminster (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

@REVUpminster: Probably you didn't look hard enough: Milwaukee Sentinel. --George Ho (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• To REVUpminster - from an NFC side, we're fine with the TV logo/title card, and a cast image on the page about the show or if the characters are put to a different page, there. There is an argument that George has that a print ad that has both the logo and the cast image could be a singular image that does both, but my impression is that as this always reduces the title card/logo to a small side, it might fail for being used to identify the show. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand the NFC but they can be dogmatic especially when show makers are unlikely to object. I was commenting if a promo images is to be included it should come in the production section but will fall foul of NFCREVUpminster (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Our concern with NFC is not about prevent objections from the show makers (indeed, it is highly unlikely that such inclusion would be an infringement under fair use law). However, our goal with NFC is to minimize non-free when it is not needed, and thus seek to keep image inclusion minimal; thus promotional materials that are otherwise not the subject of discussion are avoided. (A counter example is that the promo materials for Fringe used the in-show glyphs which are also subject of discussion about the show, and thus reasonable to include.) However, we generally will allow a cast photo if you aren't lucky enough to have a free one that captures the primary cast handy. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFC is a guideline that can be sometimes overthrown by WP:NFCC policy. In fact, an infobox image doesn't have to be a logo or title card at default, even when popular and recognizable. George Ho (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Jojhutton: Are you saying that the title card of Day by Day is sufficient enough? Why not cast images from Sitcoms Online? George Ho (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television says that either title card or promo image is acceptable. Why is promo ad opposed as a replacement, while the guideline allows it? George Ho (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The guide allows it, but it isn't as an "either or" situation (so maybe the guide should be more clear), it's a "in case you cannot find it, you can use a promo image). Title Cards are preferable because they are easier to replace with free images. You cannot replace a promo ad with a free image that is of equal value. They don't exist by nature.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
    • But a "replaceable" title card would be deleted on grounds of WP:NFCC#1 violation and creation of a free derivative (stand-alone logo). I replaced the very generic title card of Buffalo Bill (TV series) (which had a background of a city) with the stand-alone logo). But I guess title card is not "replaceable" until both the people and the free image call the non-free image "replaceable". And you are saying that free logo would make the promo ad "insignificant", correct? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
      • It's not about one image making another one insignificant, but are we following policy. Per WP:NONFREE and WP:FUC, we are supposed to use free images as often as possible. If we can replace a non-free image with a free one then we are obligated to do that. Given that the image in the infobox is rarely significant beyond simply identifying the show, a free alternative is typically best. Title cards easily identify the show, using the font style that is recognizable by readers we can find/craft a free alternative that is probably only missing some background image that is inconsequential. Promo ads are usually very specific, either announcing a particular season or episode, and are not replaceable. TV shows are not the same as films, where there are posters designated for the film itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
        • A little off-topic, but can images of made-for-TV movies be treated the same as posters of theatrical films? I replaced atrocious DVD covers of TV movies with print ads of them: The Promise of Love, The Great Escape II, Amelia Earhart TV movie, 20,000 Leagues Hallmark movie, Follow the Stars Home. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
          • In general, I think that's just fine. We're not talking about the same thing for a TV series that has a designated title card for every episode. We're still talking about a film, and if you find an equivalent to a poster then it's fine. The only one that I would hesitate is the "Promise of Love" one, because I personally wouldn't want to see a poster that looked like it was sitting on someone's desk.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• @Favre1fan93, Bignole, AussieLegend, REVUpminster, and Bignole:The beginning of this sounds like "we are traditionalist, so we stick with what we have, regardless of the beneficial proposal). I'm extremely disappointed in the consensus. A) the majority of the time for animated series, the logo isn't free-media. So why enforce an image that may or may not be free-content? B) The logo isn't always informative, in fact its not informative at all and doesn't portray the series as much as a promotional poster does. Not only that, but considering that WP:FILM and WP:ANIME also allow promotional posters, it should show something.

I do not agree with this. i dont consider a logo equal to a poster. So therefore, i cannot believe that the logo can replace the information that poster provides.Lucia Black (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is consistency that is required. There could be a million TV series on Wikipedia going back to the 1950's. Where would you get promotional posters for them all. Films have always had posters but could we find one for Four Feather Falls or even Adventures of Superman (TV series). REVUpminster (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lucia Black:, not to mention consistency within the subject matter itself. Yes, posters are nice but you are not guaranteed that there is A) A poster that actually represents the show as a whole (as opposed to one specific season/episode) B) that subsequent seasons will have posters representing them. Thus, you'll end up with inconsistency within the article and its sister pages. You're arguing that it's about "being informative", and with TV shows it's more about "what is the recognizable image for this show". Typically, that's the logo/title card. Given that it is difficult to ascertain the authenticity of posters for TV series (e.g., Smallville had a shit load of fanmade posters that made it difficult to figure out if the WB/the CW had actually issued them or not), it's better to stick with what is easiest to find. I have seen individual episodes with posters, and I have seen some seasons with posters. I have not seen too many series that have a poster that was not meant for something else (e.g., cast promotional for the season, which means it changes in a different season, or just promo pics for the show).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@REVUpminster: Consistency is required, but that doesn't mean all series have the same. Also note that promotional posters don't actually have to be physical posters. any form of image to promote the series is possible.

@Bignole: that's definitely no excuse to avoid posters all together. For example: Steven Universe has both logo and poster. one image is going to be removed.And that's going to e a disservice to the first-time readers and it will be because of WP:TV. I honestly believe you are making this look more like a hassle than it really is. I would like a real un-bias review of the situation. And also note that DVD/BD-box art is also used by WP:ANIME and it serves just as well as a poster.

Smallville has already a promotional image/poster for the pilot episode (in which should be renamed Smallville (pilot)), in which can be used for the main article. I don't buy that Smallville has had a large amount of fan-posters as an excuse to not look for one or even use one. There's an easy way of looking for them and that is searching through primary and secondary sources, and reliable news sites related to the topic.

This is why i'm very disappointed in the consensus, because in WP:TV's view, its either all logos or all posters. and because there's not always a large amount of them (at this moment, because i guarantee once we allow them, they can be found AT LEAST half of the time) we can't use what most benefits.

I definitely understand that cast change throughout the series, but you also have to consider that articles shouldn't be made for those who are most familiar, but who are reading it for the first time. And i'm willing to consider that the majority of the time, there is a core group of cast members that stay throughout the entire series (the Office (US series) and Criminal Minds), the only exception to this that i can think of is Doctor Who but overall, that's still an issue to use a title card as it has also changed throughout its broadcast history.

there is definitely room for compromise. and that is to allow posters just as much as logos. Posters provide more information than logos, so there is no reason to be against them other than attempting to keep the consistency the wikiproject forced. Also note that this "consistency" is just an illusion, there is WP:ANIME that provides DVD boxes just as much as posters and refuse to use logos. this is something WP:TV should consider.Lucia Black (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

First, you have to start with WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, before you start anywhere. Yes, either the logo or the poster will be removed on that page because we don't need 2 non-free images. How is losing a poster a disservice to a reader? This is about consistency across the whole project. If we just articles do whatever they wanted, then there would be total chaos and it would more of a hassle for readers than anything else. You argue that the poster for the Smallville pilot (which should not be renamed, because it's a pilot, and it wasn't called "Smallville" in the episode listings) should be used for the series page. Except, it's an image that represents a concept important to the pilot. It is not relevant to the rest of the series. Instead, the logo has not actually changed over the course of 10 years. There have been background changes to the logo, but the text font is the same and is recognizable to the public. Consistency is the key. If you have posters that truly represent entire seasons, and you have them for all the seasons of a show then use them. The MOS is not a policy, it's a guideline. But if you have one thing for one page and another for a different page then you're likely to have issues. The MOS actually says: "The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e., a screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself." - The key point is "represent the show itself". That means, you're not finding some season poster and trying to pass it off as a series poster. Also, a cast promo is not a poster for the show, it's a picture of the cast. That's different.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I know about WP:FUC, and WP:NONFREE. it will be a disservice because the logo doesn't provide any specific information at all other than what the series' logo looks like. Steven Universe example is removing the characters and artistic style that the logo simply doesn't provide. the fact that you don't see the problem, makes me worry about what points i provide.

And i realize that you are focused on consistency of the whole project, but this inconsistency doesn't matter if other wikiprojects of the same media choose to use another method. If the overall media is inconsistent, why bother keeping it within a single project? the initial promotional poster of the pilot/1st season/teaser image is enough as long as there's drastic modifications to the cast or style (such as a series revamping the entire cast, or the series becoming average crime stories to something like film-noir detective series).

if there are additions to a cast, that's fine. But i find it to be over technical to think that the image has to cover every episode of every season. And although technically a titlecard accomplishes what you have in a more specific form, it doesn't mean that promotional art/posters/box art can't accomplish that either. Not only that but as the series goes on, so do titlecards. Nothing stays the same throughout the series. not for long-lasting series at least. it's not like we're looking for an arbitrary image to be against these type of artwork making it into infoboxes. the best choice is always the first/initial version. similar to how books use 1st editions. But i understand that not every series is the most acceptable. This will be acceptable the majority of the time. Not all series have drastic cast changes (such as Doctor Who).Lucia Black (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You're example of Stephen Universe works from an anime standpoint, so please don't misinterpret my ability to see the issue. Clearly, you have not seen Smallville, since you don't realize that that show drastically changed from season 1 to season 10, and by the end of the series only 2 people in season 10 had been on the show for all 10 seasons. Not to mention cinematography change and the show looked different visually. So, a poster for episode 1 isn't a good reflection for an entire series (as I pointed out, the title card did stay the same for that show). That said, the fact that other WikiProjects are not following the guideline is neither here nor there, because that's always been the case. Those Projects need to get in line with the guideline, not the other way around. It's easier for them to follow the guideline than to have a guideline that tries to cater to every Projects style. Regardless, there is nothing that says posters cannot be used, merely that you need to be consistent within the set of articles. What's interesting is that your argument is that we allow people to put whatever they want in the image block, with no real guidelines. If we didn't set standards for consistency then what is the point of having standards in the first place?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting this as an "anime" standpoint, after all i'm here because i'm disappointed in overall consensus of overall TV series to reject all promotional artwork. Whether its anime or not, it doesn't change my opinion. What makes it an "anime" standpoint anyways? Would you go in contest against WP:ANIME's way of using DVD box/promotional artwork in infoboxes? according to you, that would be best. I'm not here to care about wikiprojects. i'm here for the sake of articles. so keep in mind i don't care about wikiprojects subjective standards, if it means portraying the article acurately. So if you're only caring about whats best for the wikiproject, i'm not going to take what you say seriously.

Clearly, you're making big assumptions. Yes I've seen the vast majority of Smallville (mid way into season 9 is where i stopped). but you're using a standpoint i don't agree with. You still trying to make it too technical by making sure the entire cast appear . The vast majority of the series still used Clark Kent (the lead role already provided in the pilot chapter's promo poster), Lex Luthor, Lana Lang, Cloe Sullivan and like i said, as long as the vast majority of the cast doesn't change its fine. Not only that, but what changes do you expect to reflect? You're using the mentality that a character has to be in every season in order to be a key cast member, in which simply is flawed. that idea is simply flawed and too technical. it will never work according to your standards. or maybe thats what you hope in order to keep logo/title cards?

A poster for example such as a pilot (technically part of season 1) provides the lead character, what type of portrayal of the series its going for. Its not just any arbitrary poster, its the first poster. Smallville made more drastic changes in season 9-10. the vast majority of the series' changes were gradual but completely recognizable. Not only that, but the series is completed and linearly relevant. meaning the changes throughout the story are completely relevant to the initial stage of the series. So the first season or first episode still reflects the over all series well. It is no Doctor Who where an entire cast and art direction changes due to time and making a beginning irrelevant. I still consider DVD/BD/VHS/laser disc/Betamax ox art completely acceptable.

Having standards isn't an issue here so lets not use it as a scapegoat to not allow including promotional images. Allowing promotional images isn't allowing "any" kind of image. but any "acceptable" image. And i think that's the problem, accepting more forms would "seem" inconsistent, but that's only because WP:TV forced out any other forms. I feel that its perceived in such a way that it wont be acceptable no matter how reasonable it may be.Lucia Black (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2013 (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.

RfC invitation

There's an RfC at Talk:Cheers (season 1) that requires attention by editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Discussion has been closed, with consensus remaining the same. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Icarly-logo-2.png

Deletion of this file File:Icarly-logo-2.png is now under review. Join in discussion by clicking WP:Deletion review#File:Icarly-logo-2.png. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

C-SPAN—help before going to FAC?

Hi all, I'm about ready to take C-SPAN article to FAC, but I'd like another editor to review and confirm one final change. And, because I have a consultant relationship to C-SPAN, I'm quite cautious and do not make direct edits, so I'm looking for someone to make this update to the Development section. Right now, one passage about its founding says:

Lamb shared his idea with John D. Evans in 1977, who with a number of others helped to co-found the network.[7][8] Early cable-television executive Bob Rosencrans provided the initial funding of $25,000 for Lamb to initiate C-SPAN in 1979 and other cable-television executives followed suit.[4][9]

But the phrase "who with a number of others help to co-found the network" is vague, so I did some additional research, and proposed the following:

Lamb shared his idea with several cable executives, who helped him launch the network. Among them were Bob Rosencrans who provided $25,000 of initial funding in 1979 and John D. Evans who provided the wiring and access to the headend needed for the distribution of the C-SPAN signal.

Markup version of above text

Lamb shared his idea with several cable executives, who helped him launch the network. Among them were [[Bob Rosencrans]] who provided $25,000 of initial funding in 1979<ref name=Barnhart/><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan05/features3.php |title=Original Cable Guy |accessdate=August 5, 2008 |work=college.columbia.edu |publisher=[[Columbia College, Columbia University|Columbia College]] |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080829153957/http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan05/features3.php <!--Added by H3llBot-->|archivedate=August 29, 2008}}</ref> and [[John D. Evans]] who provided the wiring and access to the [[cable television headend|headend]] needed for the distribution of the C-SPAN signal.<ref name=Paddock>{{cite news |url=http://www.ur.umich.edu/9798/Apr08_98/cspan.htm |date=April 8, 1998 |accessdate=October 8, 2012 |publisher=The University of Michigan |work=The University Record |location=Ann Arbor, Michigan |author=Travis Paddock |title=C-SPAN chief says network has 'extended the gallery'}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The C-SPAN Revolution |first=Stephen E. |last=Frantzich |coauthor=John Sullivan |publisher=[[University of Oklahoma Press]] |year=1996 |page=30 |isbn=0-8061-2870-4}}</ref>

If someone agrees that's more clear and would be willing to add this to the article, please do. Or if you have any questions about it, I'd be happy to answer any. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This is now  Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Carry On Laughing episodes

Is the episode list best off on the Carry On Laughing article (version), or on the separate article Carry On series on screen and stage? Please discuss at Talk:Carry On Laughing#Episodes. You maybe also interested in a related discussion at Talk:Carry On series on screen and stage#Requested move. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have anything to contribute? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Jim Ignatowski

Renaming this page is proposed; join in discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Brave Heart

I have suggested this to be moved. Please see Talk:Brave Heart#Move?. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Decades in Producer/Director templates

this edit seems quite unusual to me. Isn't it common to have decade groupings in producer/director templates?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 49#Film director navboxes. Splitting by decade is completely arbitrary based on year and leads to uneven templates. Maybe a split by artistic or studio era or similar could be appropriate if boxes got out of hand and it becomes absolutely necessary. Splitting by decade also restricts the template to a minimum amount of vertical space - by removing the splits, we let the template find its natural size. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, not sure why this is listed at this project - it doesn't really affect TV shows. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. It should be at film. I think I just clicked on the first tag on the talk page early in the morning. I'll go comment at the thread you pointed me to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Request Input

IS it common to have lists like this [[11]]? The guests may be celebrities but when I see lists like this it doesn't say why their visit is/was notable. It's not even in a list it's a mass of names most without sourcing except two sources all at the end. I am not removing myself per WP:BOLD mainly because I have had disputes with the IP that added them and I would not like to add fuel to that particular fire. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek featured portal candidate

• Portal:Star Trek

Miyagawa and I have nominated Portal:Star Trek as a featured portal candidate.

Commented would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Star Trek.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking for opinions in a discussion over at Talk:Survivor (U.S. TV series)

Hey everyone, I've made some suggestions on the formatting of Survivor season articles. If you have any interest in the topic, or opinions you'd be able to share, stop by and check it out. Direct link to the discussion: here. Thanks all! Gloss • talk 22:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Peter Casey (screenwriter) and David Lee (screenwriter)

Are both writers individually notable? If not, shall we merge them both? --George Ho (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Templeton "Faceman" Peck

Request is still ongoing; comment whilst it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

talk:Black Entertainment Television

Request is still discussed; comment while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sortability of seasons and length of episodes at List of original programs distributed by Netflix

Should these be included? Discussion here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So You Think You Can Dance cruft

I happened upon the So You Think You Can Dance finalists pages today (see "Other finalists" row above), and found some cruft magnets. I don't know where to even start, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. (Perhaps the finalists pages could be shaved and redirected to the season pages, which could try to stay on topic and sourced without veering into non-notable BLPs?)  czar ♔ 05:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Desilu Productions

Ongoing move discussion initiated. Comment there for adequate consensus. --George Ho (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Brimstone and Treacle

Hi! May someone pay a visit here? Thank you. :) --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 01:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Supercut

Supercut redirected to Mashup (video), which mentions "supercut" but doesn't define it. I've just created a proper (I think) article for Supercut, and linked to it from Mashup (video). But I'm not a film or video fan, just a language and reference geek, so will somebody from this project please check out Supercut and do whatever else needs doing? TIA. --Thnidu (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

FLCR

I have nominated List of The Simpsons episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) 01:22, 22 September 2012‎ (UTC)

List of 30 Rock episodes at FLRC

I have nominated List of 30 Rock episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Karate Star

The article Karate Star has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG. Has only few sources including IMDb and TV.com which are not reliable, failing WP:RS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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.

WP Television in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Television for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't already, take a few moments to answer some of the interview questions. The more, the merrier! The interview will be published in this Wednesday's edition of the Signpost. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series)" merge request

Anyone interested in participating on a discussion as to whether Twiki and/or Dr. Theopolis should be merged into Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (TV series) are welcome to give input on this request. Discuss this >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding "Due South" merge request

Anyone interested in participating on a discussion as to whether SEVERAL character articles (i.e.: Margaret Thatcher (Due South), Stanley Kowalski (Due South), etc.) should be merged into Due South are welcome to give input on this request. Discussion taking place >>>HERE<<<. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Repeat links

At {{TopUSTVShows}}, AussieLegend has eliminated a lot of repeat links, citing WP:NAV, which says "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template." However, the template seem confusing and less informative to me know. I think when a template is used to show annual recognitions for an achievement, having multiple links conveys the information that a particular page is about a mulitple-honoree. Shouldn't we go back to the prior format?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not happy with the current format either, but the previous version was far worse end even more confusing with much redundancy. It really also violated WP:REPEATLINK. A list article is really needed here if we are to retain all the links to the yearly schedule pages. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Level of coverage about minority auditions at SNL

There is an ongoing discussion that requires further input. Despite the opening argument of the discussion, it is not about the inclusion of the above event, which is by itself worth mentioning as part of the shows development history, but whether or not the individual who was hired from that needs mentioning while discussing the event when she is herself not notable in any way within the context of the article broadly covering major aspects of the show. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Jake Harders

Hello , while categorizing on Commons I noticed that seeminly nobody knew the birth place of the said actor. I did a quick research and found out he was born in Heswall, Merseyside, near Liverpool (source). Since my home Wiki is the Italian one though, could someone please review my edit to check whether is everything O.K.? Thanks. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Absent

Hey all, I'm having difficulty understanding the value of listing absent characters/cast members in episode synopses. For example in this series of edits, an IP editor has begun to catalog all the various characters who did not appear in Danny Phantom episodes. What is the value of knowing who wasn't in something? It smacks of indiscriminate trivia to me, since the purpose of a synopsis is to explain what the episode was about, not what it was NOT about. (NOTE: There was no mention of the Lido Deck in Episode 15 of The Love Boat.) And in any series with a world of characters, there are surely going to be some who do not play a significant role in an episode, or who do not appear at all. Seems that kind of info is more appropriate for a site like Wikia, rather than Wikipedia. Anybody have any thoughts on this? Another example is here. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no value to it, and I don't see why they should be listed. I valid use of it, that I see, can be seen on The Big Bang Theory (season 4) page, in episodes 5 and 6. Otherwise, it's just useless trivia. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, @Favre1fan93: I feel that I once read an argument in favor of the info being: If it is a main cast member who doesn't appear, it's worth mentioning. But I don't know that it is. If an SNL cast member doesn't appear because they were on vacation, is that noteworthy? If Joanie Cunningham doesn't appear in an episode of Happy Days, is it important to the encyclopedia? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is ever worth mentioning, but maybe in extreme cases, or on a case by case basis. Right away, I know the Danny Phantom example has no value to have that info. Here's another example for you (just trying to pull from shows that I watch and work on): This season (6) of Parks and Rec, the character of Andy Dwyer (who appears in the opening credits), was absent from episodes 3-9 because the actor, Chris Pratt was in London filming Guardians of the Galaxy. On the season 6 page, it was noted in the production section about this, but there was no need to include it in each episode as a Note. So I think a work around to this issue, if needed, is to add info about an absent to the season lead, or in a production section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Good notes, thank you. Anybody else have thoughts on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93. Listing absent characters is something that is all the rage in Disney articles where sometimes even recurring characters are listed (and quickly removed!). Kaley Cuoco's absence from season 4 episodes of The Big Bang Theory due to a horseriding accident that necessitated a change of job in the series when she did return is an example of when listing a cast member's abscence is appropriate, but listing cast members simply because they don't appear serves no purpose at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @AussieLegend:. Anybody feel strongly enough about this to support an addition to MOS:TV? Warranted? Not warranted? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like overkill to me, but I won't oppose it. DonIago (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose it either, but I don't know where it would go to be honest in the MOS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's a misguided suggestion, I dunno. I feel that it's easier to manage some of the Wikia-cruft if we have a place to point to that states an explicit objection. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree in general terms, but I guess my question is whether cutting the cruft has actually been contentious. What I mean is that if cruft-trimming hit DRN or such I'd understand the argument for updating the MoS, but if we're doing it just as a deterrent, then...this does seem a bit like overkill to me. That said, I imagine if we were going to insert a guideline regarding this than "Cast information" might be the appropriate section. DonIago (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll yield on it. I suppose it's not pervasive. I'll keep this discussion in mind for the future. Thanks all! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Stoked episodes

Was hoping to get some opinions from the community about List of Stoked episodes. Show appears to originate in Canada, but the list contains US and Australian airdates. I'm of the opinion the non-Canadian airdates should be deleted. I've started a discussion here. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made comment and applied several fixes to the article but additional input about whether or not to include air dates from multiple countries should be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

GAR notification

Frank Underwood (House of Cards), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Hatch

Requested move ongoing; comment while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC).

Template overhaul notice

I intend to overhaul the Emmy, Golden Globe and SAG award lead and supporting actor templates for to include the fictional character role. The purpose is to provide meaningful templates to link important fictional characters. This will help to highlight the most notable characters without articles and draw editorial interest to the most important fictional character articles. This is analogous to what I have done for episodes with the writing and directing Emmy, DGA and WGA templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was about to start this and realized that there will likely be a lot of redirects to character list articles and character sections of articles. My preference is to exclude redirects from the templates. Is there any way to justify this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't sound appropriate - these templates can be a bit unwieldy as it is, and it isn't the character that has won the award. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Which templates are you talking about? Navboxes? Infoboxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I want to make templates such as {{EmmyAward ComedyLeadActress}}, {{EmmyAward ComedyLeadActor}} and make them look like {{EmmyAward ComedyDirector}}. Think of the benefit to the fictional character articles of doing this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. The purpose of a navbox is to link related articles, and we shouldn't be including unlinked text or information. It isn't the episode or the character that has won the award, but the director or actor. If you start adding all this information, then we get navbox bloat, and we get to the stage where the article becomes redundant to the navbox, which clearly isn't what we want. {{EmmyAward ComedyDirector}} is inappropriate as it currently stands due to all the unlinked text. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've merged it and removed all the unlinked text. I still think inclusion of the episodes merits further discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

After all this time, I agree that most of the unlinked episode articles are not going to be created anytime soon. At first, including the episodes highlighted those in need of work and many new ones were created. Most of those that can be created without extraordinary efforts now have been. Thus, removing the unlinked episodes is O.K. There are 7 other "Episode" templates just like this for (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes for creation). I think including the episode is important here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This encourages me in my interest in excluding fictional characters without specific articles. I will soon create Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Fictional characters for creation and post the results of this work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Another problem with including characters in actor award templates is that the character may not be programme-specific. Sherlock Holmes, etc., spring to mind. I really don't think this is a good idea. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

O.K.--I'll just create the page without changing the templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Series Overview tables

Please come to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Series overview tables and the like to discuss the implementation of these tables in television articles, from main articles to List of Episode pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Anybody got a source more reliable than Zap2It and TVGuide?

This always bums me out. I saw some recent changes to Aaahh!!! Real Monsters and thought I'd look into auditing the airdates what with all the rampant date/numerical vandalism lately. Problem is, the two sources I would default to, Zap2It and TVGuide.com are at odds over the airdates. Anybody got a better approach or a better reliable source? The dates seem consistently at odds. This isn't the first time I've noticed such problems. Zap2It is losing credibility with me, though TVGuide.com doesn't seem much better. Hey Arnold! is another article where the airdates appear to be from here and don't always jibe with Zap2It or TVGuide. Thoughts anyone? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I can almost always find the premiere date in a contemporary news article if nowhere else. The source(s) for the rest of the series can vary. I've found that the Internet's consensus for ARM's premiere is Oct. 29, but the LA Times oddly enough gave Oct. 30. The U.S. Copyright Office can be a valuable asset if you can find what you're looking for (be careful if you cite that; it tends to give session timeouts). If only Google's News Archive weren't down for maintenance, I'd say that's a good place to start. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Would The Futon Critic have information on shows that old? Personally that is where I would check first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing sources after an episode airs

Hello community! Typically we require sources for episodes that haven't aired yet, and I've noticed a trend in the world of children's television (which is where ALL THE ACTION happens! Srsly, if you're not editing in the world of children's TV, you aren't editing! Come on down!) where editors will remove the sources once the episode airs. I'd like to discourage this practice, and I hope the community considers getting behind that discouragement, because vandalism sucks, vandalism is rampant, and sources are the quickest and only way to double-check against date-whacking. For every instance of date vandalism, I find myself checking three places, Zap2It, TVGuide.com and Futon Critic. Leaving the references in will save us all a few unnecessary trips, and leave more time for in-fighting. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources should not be removed for dates. It's fine for plots, because we can just watch the episode to verify, but not for dates. There does not need to be one on every single line, most websites for TV have a cumulative list (like TV Guide or MSN) that can source entire seasons.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, great. That's helpful, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

As Bignole said, if you can find a cumulative list, you should (in my opinion) add the source to the header of the episode list table, after the "Original air date" text. That will indicate all dates are sourced by that source, unless there are still future episodes or special occurrences, where the episodes needs an additional ref. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Good note, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Category request: Category: Dragons' Den

Articles which are already in this category:

Example articles which belong to this category:

• Dragons' Den
• Dragons' Den (Canada)
• Dragons' Den (UK)
• Shark Tank
• List of Shark Tank episodes

Parent category/categories:

• Category: reality television series
• Category: Business-related television series
• Category: Game shows

Reason:

• This is the Dragon's Den franchise, so keeping things together seems like a good idea.

-- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone thinks this is a good idea, they can create the category and I'll populate it. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The most watched television program is U.S. history

Just FYI about article [[12]], the latest Nielsen ratings say that Super Bowl XLVIII was the most watched television program is U.S. history with 111.5 million viewers. Source: [[13]]. For the most part, I am uncomfortable with editing Wikipedia pages myself. I've done it, but it has not been a fun or easy experience for me. But I rely on Wikipedia for information, and I read it on a daily basis. Thank you. Qitonia (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

International children's networks

I suggest that we merge childrens networks into one article with sections for each country. The sections will say the broadcast area, language, availability, and launch date. Most of these network articles are mere lists of programming and fancruft. They do not expand upon the content on the original channel. Also, there are often no sources. Examples of my idea are Disney Channel (international), Nickelodeon (around the world), Cartoon Network (disambiguation), Disney Junior (international), and List of Disney XD TV channels. Anyone else with me? Finealt (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point I'll support anything that results in fewer children's television articles for vandals to corrupt. I'm trying to think of the downside, and it seems that maybe the inherent lists that are related to that network might start clogging up the main article. Like, if we have an Argentina subsection in an article on Nickelodeon, what sort of information will fill those sections, and how bloated do we expect that they will become? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

List of M.I. High episodes

Heya, the episode synopses at List of M.I. High episodes are mostly lifted from official sources instead of being summarized, which introduces promotional teaser language "Will the team make it out alive?" and content that could be construed as copyright violations. Apparently the kids don't notice

that. Anybody up to helping me fix them? I've never seen the show, so if anybody has any knowledge of there series, I'd consider you the de facto team leader. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Melissa Scott (pastor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melissa Scott (pastor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (pastor) 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 article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Brianhe (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Fictional characters for creation

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Fictional characters for creation, which highlights characters for which actors have won multiple significant awards. It is only for television series regular characters and only goes back to 1990.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on Category:Cartoon Network programs

Hello WikiProject, I was hoping to get some interested opinions over at Category talk:Cartoon Network programs. The category description, in my estimation, is vague--it doesn't properly define the scope of the category. If you have a moment to drop an opinion, it would be appreciated. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutral notification of discussion about is Big Bird a muppet

Please participate here: Talk:Hollywood_Walk_of_Fame#big_bird_is_not_a_Muppets_character.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Accolades or Awards and nominations received by ???

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Accolades_or_Awards_and_nominations_received_by_.3F.3F.3F. — Cirt (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

I've recently created the page List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Additional help with research, secondary source suggestions, and quality improvement ideas would be appreciated, at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

List peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

• Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Stuff like this is why people say not to trust WP

Intelligence (U.S. TV series) seems to be a page of misinformation. It says the show was based on a book. The source says the book was named Dissent. Then the article says the book was titled Phoenix Island without explanation. A WP:SPA came to say that the show is no longer credited as sourced from the book without a source. I can not find a source for the name change of the book or the credit basis change. Can anyone help.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Episodes of Happy Days pulled from general rotation

Can anyone please create an article for Happy Days episodes #243-247 and mention the reason they were pulled from general rotation then later aired after the episode "Passages?" 173.51.123.97 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, while I'm sure there are people who know about the series, adding more information (example: the reason, if you know it) and references might be helpful to other users who might want to get started. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know the reason that they were initially pulled from rotation. Does anyone else know? 173.51.123.97 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Radical redirects and content removal

Can someone please help look into a user's contributions (here, starting at 07:19, February 16, 2014 with Spongebob)? I don't have the time now, but this user recently came from film pages (here, with a back and forth on Tenebrae's page) and is kind of set on this being just the "American" Wikipedia, and not giving international coverage it's due respect. (Covered in this project by WP:TVINTL and at the film, WP:FILMRELEASE). Thanks for those who look in to this before I can. (Again, I don't know how many are in error, but when you see a user do a lot of these, chances are some are.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Favre1fan93: If I remember correctly, Finealt submitted the international broadcast info at SpongeBob, which was reverted by Mediran. Finealt's explanation was that en.wikipedia.org is not the American Wikipedia, which is a valid argument, though the info he re-submitted bumped against MOS:TV#Broadcast. I started a discussion on the talk page a few hours ago with a possible compromise and my personal opinion on the matter. When you get a sec, please take a look. I haven't looked at the other stuff you've brought up, though, so I can't comment on that yet. Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cyphoid. Again, I don't know what, if any of the others, is against policy, or extremely bold changes, but they recently created adverse additions to some film pages against policy, so just in watching things play out, I saw they moved over to the TV realm, which has similar-like policies. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a side note, Finealt has been blocked for edit warring and now claims to be retired. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Disney Channel (Asia)

Hey WikiProject, I have a fun challenge: The first person who can make head or tails of Disney Channel (Asia) gets a stroopwafel. Seriously though, this article seems to have been hit hard by some Vietnam-based IP vandals who have introduced a variety of gibberish into the article over many, many months. I can't even tell if the article has any legitimate content, or where we should begin to rebuild it. In this edit an IP introduced "suicide" gibberish! And of course many the IPs used have edited other articles, making cleanup quite the chore. Okay, so which one of you was supposed to watch this article?! (jk) Anyhow, any thoughts on how to proceed, and any extra help is appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Reliable source list

Is there any value to having a list of sources the community considers reliable? They have one for film at WP:FILM/R. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt. It would be good to have a place to point to if anyone questions stuff, and state how show blogs are not reliable info etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it would be nice. Then we could clarify certain sources that are user submitted and not allowed, or when there is an allowance for an otherwise unreliable source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I started a document at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ Currently it's less of a FAQ and more of a list. There are a couple of hidden sections I've commented out, for Consensus and Unreliable sources. If we do have a section that covers issues we've arrived at by consensus, it would be nice if we could reference the consensus discussions. That's something I've always felt was missing from a lot of MOS docs and such--being able to look at the discussions that went into the decision. Anyhow, just a thought, and I'll write up some thoughts on the relevant talk page. Go nuts, community! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added some unreliable sources with links to the relevant WP:RSN discussions. Regarding the hidden note asking about Son of the Bronx, community opinion is split on whether or not it's reliable.[14][15][16] --AussieLegend (✉) 22:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Cyphoid created the FAQ page to work, can we move any further discussions to that talk page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, I get chatty at times. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Just wanted to solidify the conversation and move everything to the (now) proper location. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit

There is a disagreement at Penn and Teller: Bullshit! over whether to use quotation marks around the word "bullshit" alone. Since this article falls under this Wikiproject umbrella, you may want to weigh in on that Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Comic-Con Panel ideas discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 45#Comic-Con Panel. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox question

Hopefully a simple question... In the infobox does the num_seasons field get incremented once that season starts airing or after the season is completed? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have always seen it done this way (and believe it is the correct way to do it), to increment once that season starts. So if you are in season 1, and season 2 has been announced, update once the first ep of season 2 airs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Jnorton7558 to Favre1's comment I would add that what I typically see is the increment going up by one for each new episode, as opposed to adding all the eps at once. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree and that what I had normally seen and how I thought it should be but saw an editor today change it saying that it shouldn't be changed until after the season completed so I thought I'd ask. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The instructions for {{Infobox television}} say that num_seasons or num_series is for "the number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced", not the number of seasons or series that have been completed, so this edit was wrong, as were several other edits that Helmboy has made stating that the field is for completed seasons only. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A "Number of" in terms of a group of items, is a count of complete groups. So when the first episode is produced the count will be one. However when a series is renewed, additional seasons are incomplete until all episodes for that season are produced. Due to the lack of available production dates and consistency with the num_episodes field, the broadcast date or cancellation date should be used.Helmboy (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As has been pointed out on your talk page, only a single episode is required to confirm that a season has been produced. The season doesn't have to be complete to have been produced. If, for example, a series is cancelled after season 2, episode 1 has aired but before season 2 episode 2 has been produced, the series still has two seasons, not 1, which is what you are arguing. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That is only true for the first season only, since a first season has a certain number of episodes produced before it is broadcast and has wrapped production until a fuller season is ordered by the broadcaster. Later seasons are NOT complete until the seasons production has ended. Since those dates ARE inconsistent and for consistency with the episode count, broadcast dates should be used until the series is cancelled. Helmboy (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In brief, it is illogical to count a season that is still in production.Helmboy (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, The Playboy Club would have zero seasons as it was cancelled after the third episode had aired, and the 4th hadn't finished production. But that's not how we number the infobox. If a series has episodes airing in the second season then it has two seasons. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If you read all the previous comments, I stated that the first season is exempt as the field is only incremented as additional completed seasons are produced. Helmboy (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Further more, the template states produced which is the past tense of produce, implying the count is for seasons that have ended production. helmboy 01:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The template doesn't imply that at all. A single episode is all that is required for a season to have been produced, as already explained. Exempting the first season makes no sense. At best, it's inconsistent with your argument that a season hasn't been produced until it's completed. By your reasoning, The Penguins of Madagascar would only have 2 seasons, despite 28 episodes of season 3 having aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You really don't understand the English language and basic math, produced number of seasons would be read as the total number of seasons that have been produced in their entirety. It by definition this should NOT include any season currently in production. Therefore, until a season has ended it's production run it can not be incremented in the count. Technically, during the first season this value should be omitted until there is a confirmed second season. If you really want to include the currently produced season, then the value must be a decimalized fraction, that would then clearly indicate the partial season. helmboy 03:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"You really don't understand the English language and basic math" - This is uncivil at best. If you can't remain civil there's very little point in continuing.

"If you really want to include the currently produced season, then the value must be a decimalized fraction" - We simply don't do that. It's over-complication of what is otherwise a simple process. How would you decimalise the count when you have no idea how many episodes there are in the season, as is often the case? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's just the frustration of reaching the point of a circular discussion. helmboy 05:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I was trying to use sarcasm to illustrate the stupidity of including a season that's still in production. helmboy 05:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Helmboy I can appreciate your passion--maybe it helps a little if I explain that I too have some frustrations with the Infobox template docs? The template instructions are severely lacking! (No disrespect to my Wiki ancestors.) Much of what is now there was cobbled from scraps a long time ago and hasn't evolved at the same rate that common usage has evolved. Basically, the common usage may not be consistent with the docs, though they ultimately either need to be, or we need to re-establish consensus to re-align the common usage with the intended guidelines. As for common practice, let's say there are 26 episodes per season. When S1 E1 of the series airs, num_episodes should start at 1. When S2 E1 airs, num_seasons increases to 2, and num_episodes increases to 27. (Now, I can also see an argument for avoiding this type of numbering because any ongoing tally is ephemeral, but I don't know that the project has yet to address this, or if they have addressed it and there's a reasonable explanation for why it's not an issue. I'm just describing common usage.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Documentation is often based on the assumption that common sense will prevail. Unfortunately, what is common sense to some is not always common sense to others. For example, it's possible to colour section headers within the infobox. This is only intended to be used by a very, very small number of series but it's not uncommon to see someone add manual colouring. It would seem common sense that if a parameter is not documented, it's not a parameter that someone should use but some people don't see that. Similarly, the documentation for starring explains how to order starring characters but this is still often problematic. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Now we are getting completely off-topic.helmboy 11:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, when a season is in production, it can't be considered a whole number that can be used to increment the num_season count. Only when all the episodes are produced for that season can the count be incremented. helmboy 11:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not how we consider it and we never have. It's really very simple. As long as one episode of a season has been produced then, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the season has been produced. It doesn't need to have been completed to include the season number in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please define we. Also if one episode constitutes a season then there are a whole lot more unaired pilots that have never been picked up by a broadcaster that should all have their own articles with the num_seasons set to one. Or would that be just as silly as what you are saying? Also any reader with basic math and comprehension skills would understand that num_seasons would be completed seasons. Next you will tell me that most readers don't have basic math or comprehension skills! helmboy 13:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We as in this WikiProject and the consensus that was created. AussieLegend is absolutely correct in everything he is saying, and nothing about it is silly. Once one episode for an in production show has aired, it has started a new season number - plain and simple. So your argument on unaired pilots are mute, because at that point a) they are unaired; b) do not have full production b) the parameter would not be set to 1 anyways, only the episode one if any. If, however, this pilot does air, season goes to 1, eps goes to 1, even if no more episodes air. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Then a show that's cancelled with unaired episodes, which have been produced shouldn't list those episodes or increment num_episodes for those episodes. Also how come num_seasons says that it's for produced seasons, not for broadcast seasons? You all seem to be stuck in the same loop of stating the same thing which is that's how editors have been doing it, even though it is numerically incorrect from the point of view of a reader. Also show me where is issue has been raised before in this WikiProject. helmboy 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been raised before. Produced is the correct wording, because even if 1 episode airs, a second season was still produced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Helmboy Take a burlap sack and fill it to the top with 26 potatoes. If I call you and order another sack of 26, but all you have is one potato to put inside right now, there are now two sacks, with a total of 27 potatoes. If you fill the second sack with another 24 potatoes, and there's still room for one more potato, but I call and say I don't want you to get me any more potatoes, there are still two sacks and a total of 51 potatoes. It is not "numerically incorrect" to say that there are two sacks containing potatoes. There may not be two FULL sacks of potatoes but there ARE two sacks and a bunch of potatoes. Now (and this is going to blow everybody's minds) "potatoes" is a metaphor for "seasons". (Favre1Fan93--you still alive?) "Seasons" don't have a number of episodes that are set in stone. Three's Company had a six episode first season because it was a mid-season replacement. A series can get cancelled mid-way in its third season and you'd still say that three seasons were produced. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes...? And I think you are agreeing with me? It takes a second to wrap your head around that metaphor, but it works and is correct, and what I was trying to say?? Short answer: I agree with you Cyphoid (and Aussie). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A season is defined by how many episodes are ordered in a seasonal production run. This figure can change depending on if the show is renewed, cancelled or in the case of a first season is extended. So a season does have a defined start and end in a season. When you know the end then you can increment your season count and not before. helmboy 02:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also until the end is reached the season shouldn't be increment as you are only part way through.helmboy 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Helmboy A sack of potatoes is defined by how many potatoes are in the sack. If there are three potatoes in the sack, then for the time being it's a three-potato sack. If the sack gets canceled two potatoes from now, it'll be a five potato sack. I understand your point, but your point deliberately ignores the way the terminology is used across the world. You know how WP:TVLEAD says that even if a series is canceled, we still say "Sanford and Son is a television program?" That's because it EXISTS. Same deal here. When another season starts, it EXISTS. Your position ignores the global usage of this terminology, not only on Wikipedia, but in the real world. Variety doesn't avoid calling a S3 episode of Family Matters a S3 episode simply because not all the episodes have been aired/produced/cancelled yet. I poked through the talk archives at Template:Infobox television and I don't see a clear discussion that arrives at the conclusion you're drawing. That means one of a few possibilities: A) Somewhere, consensus was established to support your view, and you need to go off and find that consensus. B) When the parameter was established, there was no clear consensus as to the content that would be submitted, and the ancestors just wrote what made sense at the time. C) Common usage has evolved the aim of the num_season/num_series parameter, which may not have been properly defined to begin with (I said that yesterday). There might be other possibilities as well, but now's the time when you prove the consensus instead of shaking your fist at the rest of us. I mean you no disrespect by this statement. You are telling us that we're all wrong, and we're telling you what the prevailing usage is and what our preferences and understandings are. That basically means consensus until you can dig up a conversation between a dozen other editors that supports your position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't change the topic, we are talking about when to increment a production run count, not the seasonal numbering of individual episodes. A single production run is defined by ALL episodes produced from the start of the run til the end of the run. season_num and num_episodes are related, but are different due to the former being production based and the later being broadcast based. Technically, if a first season is extended into the mid-season, that would generally require a second production run, so the first broadcast season would really be a combination of two production seasons. helmboy 03:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about when to increment num_seasons. The consensus here, (consensus being established by discussion) is that we increment it when the first episode of a new season airs/is produced/etc. So no change of subject, only examples to help explain the prevailing thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this another way, when you start counting the seasons with the episode count and starting the season count from one and not zero, you will always be out by one. Such as how the stupid Romans counted the number of years (or anything for that matter) for every 365 days (before the Georgian concept of adding a leap day). The problem was since the Julian year was started at one and not zero when any milestone year came around such as 2000 the count of years was actually 1999.helmboy 04:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Therefore the number of season should be only incremented from the second season. helmboy 04:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Explaining it further isn't really helping if there's nobody else in support of your position. I understand the point you are making. I'm describing a different perspective that is generally accepted, and is no less valid. You are describing this: set "AGE" contains 365.25 days of calendar life. Great, we got it. "FULL SACKS" or "FULL SEASONS" We are describing a CONTAINER called "DECADE SPAN". When container X is full, container Y is started. So a man who has lived 42 full cycles of 365.25 days is 42, even if he lives 364 more days. But a 42 year-old man who was born in 1949 and who died in 1991 has a DECADE SPAN that includes 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s. Substitute 1940 for sacks of potatoes, the substitute it for seasons. Are we going to be at this much longer? I'm pretty worn out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that incrementing num_seasons from the first and not the second season will always make the count out by one. Which makes you all wrong for continuing this practice. A persons age span example is invalid for the simple reason you should be counting from zero from the persons day of conception if you want to as accurate as you can be with the Georgian calendar. As for worn out, may be if you wouldn't be so abstinent to change. helmboy 05:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Zing! No, I'm worn out because I've been expending my energies making good-faith attempts to demonstrate that I understand your perspective, even if I (and the rest of the community seems to) disagree with it. I've given numerous examples, tried to employ humor to promote a friendly discourse. You have yet to even acknowledge that there COULD be a valid contrary opinion--that baffles me. But you call me obstinate? Or at least I assume you meant obstinate. I'm sure I'm wrong about that, too. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We are not wrong. As clearly stated by three editors through various means of examples and metaphors, once at least a single episode has aired for a series, the num_seasons field gets incremented. If this is a show such as the upcoming The Flash (2014 TV series) or Extant (TV series), once that first episode airs, num_seasons becomes 1. If a show such as Parks and Recreation (which already has renewal for season 7 fall 2014) comes back fall 2014, num_seasons becomes 7. You have to look at it, as all three of us have been saying as, if that first episode airs, and then all production and airing stops, it still had a second season, even though it is not a traditional 13 or 23 episodes. Parks and Recreation is a good example of this too. It's first season was a mid-season replacement and only had six episodes. Once episode 7 aired in the Fall of 2009, it was in it's second season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

num_season is NOT in the broadcast section or the production section of the infobox, however the template states produced and not broadcast. Therefore it must relate to a production run and should be incremented at the end of a run. If you want to increment it with the season then the template should say broadcast and not produced and/or the field should be moved to the broadcast section. helmboy 06:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm on the side of adding it as soon as the first season begins. That seems to be consistent with not only the instructions which were previously discussed by AusieLegend, but is consistent with the way that we have been editing these articles for years.JOJ ^Hutton 01:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Helmboy - Please don't add your replies in the middle of other posts and move post around, it screws up the text flow making it hard to follow the discussion. I've just come back after a few hours and found two posts that were miles from the pasts they replied to. Add your response in chronological order or, if it's really necessary to respond between two posts, double indent so it's obvious where you've stuck your reply. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies on that Aussie. I was confused as you were, and tried moving everything back as it was added, and did get confused with that response. Thanks for putting it back, and making the other changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

How is a season counted?

This also brings up another issue of if a season is counted as a production run or how a broadcaster packages a season. For example, Teen Wolf (2011 TV series) is in it's fourth production run, however MTV is grouping the last two together. So does this series have three or four seasons? Helmboy (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Should a season be counted as a production run or how a broadcaster packages it? Given the template states The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced.helmboy 20:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I would go by the broadcast history. How they film it is irrelevant to how it is intended to be broadcast. If it's the intention to broadcast it as 1 season, then taking a long break and filming again later doesn't change the season necessarily. You'll probably also know by the DVD release that will either say 1 season or the other.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is necessarily how things are currently handled. I believe Futurama for instance, may be handled by production history. In that particular case the DVD releases in particular would be misleading. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is a reality of how things are handled, but more a confusing mess of an exception. Just going through those pages yielded sources that pointed to information that wasn't matched by what was there (e.g., season 6 cites season 7 information as verification of how the season is split). We are saying there is a "season five" consisting of 4 made-for-tv movies, when there is actually no reliable source saying that Comedy Central, or anyone considers that "season five". Especially when there is a separate "Futurama Volume 5". Some of that categorization seems a bit near to original research. Either way, it's probably an exception to the rule, than a reflection of how things are typically handled.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I don't do enough editing of television articles to say for certain myself, just thought it should be mentioned. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the prodcodes for the Family Guy series, you will notice some episodes in a previous production run aren't scheduled until the next broadcast season. This makes me think it may be useful to move num_seasons and num_episodes to the broadcast section and create two new fields in the production section for num_runs and num_produced, so num_produced would be the total episodes produced and num_episodes would be the total broadcast. num_runs would be a count of the production filming runs and incremented when ever a new batch of episodes are produced and num_seasons would be incremented when a new broadcast run occurs. The current positioning of num_seasons and num_episodes in the infobox gives them an ambiguous meaning, as do they relate to broadcast or production or both. helmboy 00:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Bingole. It should go by broadcast history; if a series is in its third season, then that's what should be credited in the info box. The infobox is meant to bring a summary of information, and given the wide range of seasons per network, etc. many series already list their currently acting season in their infobox. And I believe that how it should remain, unless it can be proven, via-reliable sourcing otherwise. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it states on the template The number of seasons (US) or series (UK) produced. Use one or the other, not both. A season is deemed as having been produced once the first episode of the season has aired, or a reliable source confirms production has commenced. An inline citation is required if the total number of seasons produced is greater than the number aired., so that's how it should be. Most infoboxes update the season count once the first episode of the season airs. Why change something that's been in effect and working quite well? It's how seasons are counted (or series if you like in the UK). livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First off most readers don't read the details in the template. Second those template details contradict what produced means, if num_seasons is meant to be in sync with the broadcast count. Also the count doesn't need any source as it should just reflect the episode list as a summary. helmboy 01:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Also if a show has no episode list, which is the case for daily production, then num_runs and num_seasons are the same, as would be num_episodes and num_produced. With num_runs being one less than num_seasons. helmboy 01:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Who says they don't need a source? Your personal opinion on a matter doesn't automatically over-ride policies put in place long before your joining of Wikipedia. And since when does it contradict what "produced" means. Your whole logic is backwards in my eyes, and really makes me question if you're able to work with others; given your previous edits on other pages, you challenge other editors to prove their points, while not proving your own. It's a bit of ownership of things on your part. It also appears that when someone proves their point, you re-direct the subject to once again try and prove yourself while you're walking and talking yourself in circles just to try and prove that you, yourself, are right. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 01:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First it doesn't need a source, as the infobox is meant to summarize the article or link article. Second that citation policy, like with any encyclopedia citation is for referencing other information that is taken from external material. Third, "produced" is NOT the same as "broadcast." And lastly, you only seem to like editors who share your narrow vision of how policy and submissions should be interpreted. helmboy 02:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There does not need to be 2 new additional columns. There are plenty of sections already. You have number Number of episodes and number of seasons. If they produce a season and it never airs, then we don't count it because we're talking about "Broadcast" history. We're not talking about production history. That would be something completely different and would require context that you can only get through prose.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Series end dates

Futon Critic does something I think is smart: It makes a call that series that have neither aired new episodes in 12 months, nor released any news about upcoming episodes, are effectively cancelled. I think that's helpful, because it addresses the really annoying problem that animation networks almost never announce proper cancellations. Typically we edit war with overzealous fans/haters on this issue while we're waiting for official news that never comes. Having poked through WP:RSN I couldn't find any clear consensus on the reliability of TFC, but I would propose that this is yet another valuable service it provides.

That said, I'm trying to figure out what to do at Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, and it mostly involves whether or not we consider TFC a reliable source. On the article's talk page, I advised Koala15 to raise the reliability question at this WikiProject, but they never pulled the trigger on that. Instead, they added a series end date and sourced it. That keeps getting reverted by an IP who keeps instructing us to "read the top when editing". So will we accept TFC and their declaration of cancellation as worthy of inclusion? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A source doesn't have to be discussed at RSN to be considered reliable. RSN is a place where we raise questions about a source's reliability. If there are no questions and we consider a source to be reliable, there's no need to discuss it at RSN. There were questions about TFC's reliability back in 2008, but there has been nothing since then. It's currently used in 1,783 permanent citations.[17] There would be thousands more but the TV project regularly removes citations for aired episodes. I don't think there is any question that the community considers TFC to be reliable. Regarding Secret Mountain Fort Awesome, I'm with the IP. Deciding that a series is cancelled without any verifiable source confirming cancellation is no different to original research. However, TFC qualifies the program's status by saying, "a show on hiatus for longer than 12 months - without any news about its future - is assumed to be canceled". "Assumed" is the very essence of original research, so we can't use TFC's "canceled/ended" status. We've had similar questions about The Penguins of Madagascar. After "Goodnight and Good Chuck" aired on November 10, 2012, there were no further episodes aired and a lot of edit-warring over series end dates ensued. Then, on December 24, 2013, 2 new episodes aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend Good point about the WP:RSN. I'll change the FAQ accordingly! :D The IP didn't actually take a stand through discussion, they were just reverting with cryptic edit summaries, so I respectfully can't see how their perspective is one to be agreed with. If a source is considered a reliable one, which I now know Futon is, how do we discount their declarations of a series having been cancelled? I have been under the impression (and please keep an open mind that I am aware I do not have as much experience as you either academically in this field, or as an editor) that WP:OR covers research and conclusions and assumptions that we as editors perform. But if NBC said that the series had been cancelled we're still assuming their analyses and conclusions are drawn appropriately. In this situation, FutonCritic didn't explicitly say "we haven't heard boo about Secret Mountain Fort Awesome so we're calling it cancelled" -- that actually is a conclusion that we are DRAWING, based on their standing policy, (and I accept responsibility for planting that seed). Anyhow, it seems more like WP:OR to reject the source than to accept it. It's not my aim to take a combative stance, just trying to present a different viewpoint. And as for the Penguins situation, though I'm not personally familiar with the nuances, Nickelodeon's pattern seems to be to order series, cancel them, trickle out episodes per their whim, and then run off a ton of episodes when they're trying to get rid of them. To assume that a show like Robot & Monster (albeit very funny) is still "present"-ly in production requires more of a buy-in than simply reporting what Futon says. Regards, sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If NBC says a series has been cancelled, and we can verify that, then we can take that series to actually be cancelled. However, that is not the case with the Futon Critic. It is clearly saying that it assumes that the series is cancelled because it has been on hiatus for 12 months. Note that it doesn't say this at other pages. For example, of Last Resort, the "additional notes" say "confirmed as canceled on 11/16/12". Of Good Luck Charlie it says "series finale aired on 2/16/14". Of The Playboy Club it says "confirmed as canceled on 10/4/11". The "additional notes" are obviously customised for each program. In the case of Secret Mountain Fort Awesome the notes are an acknowledgement that they're only assuming that it has been cancelled. Had it actually received notification it would say "confirmed as canceled on". --AussieLegend (✉) 08:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Points noted. I'm pretty much out of gas on this one. :) So we really have no option if the entire animation industry fails to announce cancellations, then. It's "Present" forever until someone can dig up something that resembles a reliable source. :..( Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That was pretty much the consensus last time this was discussed. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC: List of former child actors

Hi WikiProject, there is an open request for comment at Talk:List of former child actors from the United States. Short story: Article lists child actors, but examples of some actors' works may be getting a little bloated. The question asks if we should limit the list to a select few examples, somewhere between 3-5. Your thoughts are appreciated, and it'll only take a minute. :) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is everything a sitcom?

I noticed this edit where a user added The FairlyOddparents to the sitcom category, and I thought, "Whuuu...!" But that led me to the dictionary and to the article on Wikipedia, and it would seem that pretty much any comedic TV show that is not stand-up or sketch comedy, is basically a sitcom. Es correct? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

SAHAR TV

This voice has only one reference and has also contact information like an advertising; can someone work on it? --Gce (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pre-empt a problem

This may be covered elsewhere re First run and first aired in the infobox. The British TV series Ripper Street has following cancellation been renewed but will be broadcast first by amazon on the internet then by the BBC on terrestrial and satellite so what platform transmission dates will be used in the infobox and list of episodes. Help??? REVUpminster (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@REVUpminster: Take a look at It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia to see how to handle the info on the main page, as well as their list of episodes to see how to handle Ripper's list of episode page. Additionally, you can keep much of the info under the Series 3 heading on the list of page, stating that episodes premiere on Amazon, then air on BBC. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not see it as a good example, FX is a TV channel in Britain and would not present a problem re dates but Amazon Instant Video is internet. REVUpminster (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)