Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Policy on tracking deceased reality show participants

This discussion came up while I was editing the The Amazing Race pages. What is the Wikipedia policy regarding tracking or noting reality show participants who died after their season had ended? I deleted them all, because it has nothing to do with their particular season, and I was lambasted, called heartless, etc. I always thought that once the season was over, we no longer track these people. Take that information to a fan wiki if someone wants to. Those deaths had already been expunged from the Survivor and Big Brother pages as well. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any formalized policy surrounding that, but I feel like this sort of thing is governed by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If it has no relation to the contest, then it shouldn't be included. If the participant's post-season death is in some way linked to the show, such as a sustained injury or an aggravated condition or other connection to their specific participation on the show, then I can see grounds for it being included somewhere. Without that? I feel it falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WP:ONUS also is relevance, as not everything verifiable must be included. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:IINFO and probably WP:NOTMEMORIAL as well, especially for those without Wikipedia articles. I also took part in removing these notices of contestants' deaths, particularly from Big Brother and the American version of Hell's Kitchen and The Voice (and I do remember somebody subsequently reinstating the "memorial" symbol for the late Christina Grimmie for the season she was in, which I reverted again). Tried to also do that with the American Idol articles, but I see at least season 3 is a mess, with their being not just the death date of Leah LaBelle being placed there, but the DOBs of all the contestants, without any sources. (I did initiate a talk page discussion at Talk:American Idol (season 3)#DOB/death info on each contestant in the Finalists section about that, with one response saying that the DOBs are sourced to that season's run - which might satisfy WP:V but probably isn't the best way to source that personal info.) I have yet to take further action on that set of articles. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Another note to ponder on: We don't add these memorial symbols for actors on the series they were a part of. I did make note mentally about every one in the main cast of The Mary Tyler Moore Show having left us, with Betty White's passing at the end of 2021, but no one puts those little symbols by every actors' name in that or any other scripted show's article. So why is it being done for reality series? MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with TTP above- I've seen many edits in the past attempting to add info (or even just a memorial symbol) for Bob Saget onto The Masked Singer (American season 4)... despite the fact his unmasking episode aired on November 4, 2020 (and was actually filmed much earlier in the year) and he died on January 9, 2022. If his death was due to some sort of injury on the show or he had died before his unmasking episode aired, yeah, I could see something added in there making note of it. However, apart from his death itself, it has 0 correlation with that specific article. Definietely WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Magitroopa (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I've always seen these as being in super poor taste when I see them on articles. NOTAMEMORIAL stands. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It falls under WP:DUE – it's clear to me that these death mentions would all be WP:UNDUE, esp. if they happened years after they appeared on the show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft list of Survivor finalists

I created Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–20). Your contributions there are welcome. George Ho (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Why are you using colored/shaded tables? Do the colors there follow MOS:COLOR? This has been a recurring issue with the "reality TV" series articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I just partially copied tables from other seasons. Also, as I figured, the colors can indicate which colors the tribes used. Furthermore, I was trying to be consistent with Survivor season pages. Furthermore, I added the gold color for winners, but I'll remove the gold color if you want me to. BTW, haven't colors been discussed over and over this year especially? Take Talk:Survivor: Borneo#Deleting color from tables or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 36#Reality tv show progression and other tables, MOS and WP:ACCESS, the latter you participated in. --George Ho (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the latter discussion? – The consensus was not "we should ignore" MOS:COLOR! Note: I'm not jumping on you specifically here, if you are just copying the tables. But if this is a "draft", then the colors can and should be fixed before moving to mainspace. The fact that the other Survivor pages are getting this wrong (mostly because of disruptive ignorance) is not an excuse to get it wrong in the draft. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns about colors. However, even after reading the whole discussion, I still fear that other editors who spend a lot of time on Survivor pages would try to reinsert colors if I try to remove them. I'm more interested in notability of finalists than... color drama. I'll remove other tribe colors if you desperately want me to, but as I said, someone else may try to reinsert the colors. BTW, what about WP:GUIDES mentioning "exceptions" and "common sense"? George Ho (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There are no "exceptions" to the non-discrimination policy, which is a top WMF priority. MOS:ACCESS is designed to implement that policy in action. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The use of color for the tribe cells is fine because the name of the tribe is also given in the cell; thus, color is not used as the sole means of conveying information. The use of the gold for the entire row of the winner, on the other hand, would seem to be inappropriate. Bgsu98 (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The color still needs to meet the requirements of MOS:COLOR for readability. The issue is more than the "unnecessary use of color" – it's about using the right shade of color for readability in those cases where color is deemed to be appropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, yes, I absolutely agree. How can we go about determining whether a color meets the standard for readability? I would be happy to audit the Survivor pages if someone can point me in the right direction. Bgsu98 (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall, Bgsu98, and Lee Vilenski: Turns out that Template:Stribe automatically colors a row's background when a tribe's name is selected. To de-colorize, I must also de-template and convert into plain words, but that would be a huge effort, wouldn't it? Shall the template be taken to WP:TFD right away instead? George Ho (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, I think what @IJBall was suggesting was making sure that the colors chosen for the stribe templates meet the standards of readability. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bgsu98: They should be able to answer this question more exactly over in WT:ACCESSIBILITY (and where you can go to check color accessibility). I'm not sure I exactly know the standards anymore, as they may have changed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Use Snook's Color Contrast. Put in your hex codes for the background, and it then needs to get four "YES"s for the final four parameters of the the third box. If you don't, it's not compatible and is an ACCESS issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I left a note at Template talk:Stribe/color. Interestingly, the documentation for Template:Stribe/color warns that any attempts to change colors can be reversed. George Ho (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will audit the Survivor colors over the next day or two. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that colours aren't really suitable, I'm a bit unsure why this isn't just a straight table, why it has subsections and would only have scope for 20 seasons? We're also including people who weren't finalists for some reason. A straight table of: name, starting tribe, season, result and references would be fine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Lee, I plan to create List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 21–40) and List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 41–present) after this. As for the scope, I included eliminated contestants who appeared in season finales. They seem like "finalists" to me, don't they? Also, the Sue Hawk article doesn't look that good. Rather her nobility is Survivor-based. --George Ho (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

In contrast to List of The Great British Bake Off finalists, which includes only bakers who aren't eliminated. Oh, and I discussed this at Talk:Survivor (American TV series)#Notabilities of winners and runners-up. At first it's just two (or three) remaining each, but then I question Sue Hawk's (4th place) nobility, so I expanded the scope a bit. George Ho (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Unrelated, but I'm questioning whether an article like this is necessary? List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants already exists, gives placements, and links to the contestants articles. This seems like an unnecessary WP:SPINOUT? Take List of Big Brother (American TV series) houseguests, I know it only has half the number of seasons but it would never occur to me to make a list specifically for the finalists since this information is contained in the already-existing list. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Same, don't think this article is necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I ever so slightly see List of The Great British Bake Off finalists being useful only because there is no standalone contestant page. I'd rather it be fixed by converting that to a standard contestant list like Big Brother or Survivor instead of creating unnecessary finalist lists for other series. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't even read the GBBO article. Yeah, it certainly should be for all participants, and (more importantly) is currently written as if it's trying to write mini-bios about non-notable people. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Either a list of winners or a list of finalists I thought about created. As I figured, a list of winners would be insufficient for me. Rather I couldn't sit there and allow the stand-alone biographies of Sue Hawk and (possibly) Paschal English to remain as-is. Also, I wonder whether general readers care more for a list of contestants than a list winners or finalists. George Ho (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have thought about sending Sue Hawk to AFD. Bgsu98 (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Well considering that the general contestant page lists all the finalists and winners, it should satisfy all general readers regardless of whether they're looking for a list of contestants or a list of winners/finalists. If the Hawk and English aren't notable enough to sustain their own articles, they probably shouldn't have their own mini-bio within a list as they would fail WP:LISTPEOPLE. Their articles should just be deleted and the List of Contestants (LoC) and any season articles can contain the most notable information, if needed. The former individual lists of American Big Brother HouseGuests were deleted for a similar reason (you can see that deletion discussion here), they basically consisted of a list of every contestant on the season along with a short biography about them and their gameplay. This is the same format it looks like you're attempting to develop here, and although it does encompass a select group of people, it seems like it would fail the same criteria (can't say for sure, I'm not that knowledgeable on lists). If anything, I'd be more likely to support a split of the LoC page based on seasons or years (similar to the episode list), but that would be a discussion for another time/place. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

If the Hawk and English aren't notable enough to sustain their own articles, they probably shouldn't have their own mini-bio within a list as they would fail WP:LISTPEOPLE. I somewhat disagree. What about WP:EXEMPT1E? Also, I intend to merge most biographies of winners into the finalists list, like I did with most biographies of GBBO winners. Speaking of "finalists", perhaps I should rename the title to "season finale contestants", but that would make the article title lengthier... unless one draft reviewer finds the title and the list's scope dissimilar. George Ho (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:EXEMPT1E says: If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E. The first requirement is easy to provide, it's only the second that would provide slightly more trouble. When looking at WP:BLP1E, the first two requirements would likely apply here. Take Hawk for example, most reliable sources only mention her time on the series and outside of Survivor (and related reality TV appearances), she has remained low-profile and therefore doesn't satisfy BLP1E. Similarly, now taking looking at WP:BIO1E which states The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. The event is covered through the season article and I have failed to see the individual's role grow large enough, because all other TV appearances are related to this single event. I may be misunderstanding these though because I'm not as knowledgeable in BLP's as I am with TV articles themselves, and if I am please let me know. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Initially, I thought I could write a concise, small biography about Richard Hatch, but then I realize that I made the section about him bigger than I hope it could. If merging the Richard Hatch article into the list would be impossible, perhaps I shall copy-and-paste the details into the Hatch biographical article and find ways to trim the section down. In other words, I have to rework the Hatch article and make the Hatch section of the list smaller. George Ho (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Oddballs TV series

Hello! I'm currently looking to improve the article on Oddballs (TV series). Currently it seems rather messy, with a total of 11 sources. See the source assess table below for an assessment on the sources (note that some may be incorrect). If anyone is willing to help it would be greatly appreciated.

Source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Netflix Media Center	News from the Netflix website.	Not independent and just news on what new shows there are.	? Unable to view source at the moment.	✘ No
Cartoon Brew	Doesn't appear to be associated with Rallinson or Netflix	? Seems to have an editorial team, however it's powered by Wordpress which makes me question how well they actually review the info they're given.	Just provides details about the show because it's coming out.	✘ No
Advanced Television	Doesn't seem associated with Netflix or James.	Seems pretty reliable to me, has an editorial team that seems to have experience.	Mentions that it's coming out, who's making it, the plot, and then goes on to a different topic.	✘ No
Oddballs Trailer on Youtube	From James' channel	WP:RSPYT	Just the trailer for the show.	✘ No
Oddballs on Netflix	Show's page on Netflix	Show's page on Netflix	Unable to view source but I highly doubt it significantly covers the show	✘ No
Animation Magazine	Not associated with Netflix or James	Used on other animation articles so it's probably fine	Doesn't mention anything new that other sources haven't.	✘ No
Trailer on Netflix After School channel	Related to Netflix	WP:RSPYT	Same as the trailer on James' channel.	✘ No
"We Made a Netflix Show" video	From James' youtube channel	WP:RSPYT	Just stating that he made a show on Netflix with the trailer at the end	✘ No
"Meet Echo" on Netflix After School channel	Associated with Netflix	I'm not going to repeat myself. It's Youtube.	Just a "Meet the characters" video	✘ No
"Making a Show" on TheOdd1sOut channel	James' channel	Youtube	? Possibly? It goes into some detail about the process of creating a show	✘ No
Animation Magazine 2	See previous Animation Magazine	See previous	Mentions stuff the previous Animation Magazine source mentioned with details on James himself	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Animation Magazine is used at plenty of animation articles – that should be fine. (I think there's also Animation World(?) that might be looking into.) Meanwhile, things like the Netflix sources are WP:PRIMARY, which is fine for "factual" info, but does nothing to establish notability.

As always in cases with a (co-)American TV series like this, I start with Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline Hollywood, and see what they have on a show like this. Go from there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah alright. I wasn't sure on Animation Magazine since as I said I was unable to find an about us page on their website. I'll check to see if the sources you mentioned have anything about this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the sources you said to start with, I saw no results for the show (tho part of the issue is "oddball" isn't a unique term by any means). Shall I AFD it? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would fail at WP:AfD, especially as it just came out. But I admit that it's not a good sign that series creator James Rallison returns no hits from the three sources I mentioned above... For now I would wait – if it get cancelled, and never receives any additional sourcing, possibly taking it to WP:AfD can be revisited. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I highly doubt it would get cancelled but who knows. Alright. Should i draftify it instead? Cause either way it currently does not meet WP:GNG according to my source assessment table above (which I know isn't de facto or whatever but still) so it shouldn't be in mainspace. I'll check for some other sources, however the main issue is searching "Oddballs" returns a bunch of unrelated results that just have someone mentioning a bunch of people are oddballs. Also maybe searching for "TheOdd1sOut" would return better results? Probably not from the 3 sources you mentioned but from others since he's more well known under that name ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

While searching for "TheOdd1sOut" to see if I would get any related results for the show, I noticed the creator posted a tweet saying their show got to #7 on Trending on Netflix, ahead of Dahmer – Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story. So maybe it's a matter of time before sources cover it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Ellie Taylor's birthday

It has been bought to my attention that the article's birthday had been changed then reverted then back to 4 November. I have started a discussion on Talk:Ellie Taylor about that, the current Strictly Come Dancing contestant announced that herself on the BBC program as said by an IP editor though websites found says it should be 24 days later. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Digital Video Broadcasting#Requested move 31 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Digital Video Broadcasting#Requested move 31 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion on Talk:List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon

I wish to bring this talk page discussion to the attention of the WikiProject. There is a discussion on the scope of the list, specifically if the list should include shows that were not originally broadcasted on the network (such as The Donna Reed Show and The Bad News Bears). Please participate in the discussion if you have the time to spare. (Oinkers42) (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Note on Related Deletions

Notifying on a couple of AfDs potentially of interest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khoobsurat (TV series) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mi Raqsam. VickKiang (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

International Distributors in Infoboxes

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#International Distributors regarding the listing of International Distributors in the Infobox. Thank you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

1950–51 United States network television schedule (late night)

Whats with all the tv schedule articles?? Wikipedia is not a TV guide, there is a template on the page, with a load of articles, some dating back to 2008. They seem pointless to have on wikipedia surely? Shouldn't all the articles in template:US TV schedule (late night) be deleted? Govvy (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times, and the consensus has always been that (most of) the TV schedule guides have historical value (e.g. for showing which shows aired against each other, which has often determined which shows get renewed and which shows get cancelled). This is pretty much 100% true for the U.S. Primetime schedule guides. Some of the "lesser guides" – e.g. Saturday morning, daytime – have been successfully deleted IIRC. Not sure about the "late night" guides – they're probably also marginal and an argument can probably be made that they don't meet the cutoff for keeping vs. deleting. But I can pretty much predict that the Primetime guides aren't going anywhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The oddity of it, for a citation based system, then keeping these articles with no citations! heh. Govvy (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe the Primetime guides often have cites. I'm not sure about the others. But, yes – they need to have sources to be kept. I think there would be general agreement about that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Imperfects § Clauses

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Imperfects § Clauses. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation help

Can someone help me fix the citation error in "Sheesh!". I need help citing a streaming episode.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done, the correct template to use is {{Cite episode}} which fixed the error. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Request for Comment about Kari Lake

There is a Request for Comment at Talk:Kari Lake § Request for Comment: politician or political candidate? that may interest members of this WikiProject. Please participate at the talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT

The WP:TVPLOT page states the maximum number of words for writing plot summaries in certain articles. I wonder, is there really such thing as a minimum number of words? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

For episode summaries in a LoE table, I think it used to say 100–200 words. Less than 100 words, and most editors will assume it's a WP:COPYVIO of an episode blurb from something like a TV schedule guide. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's fair to judge a summary as copyvio simply because it's short and without providing any proof that the summary is copied. Anyway, the reason why I brought this topic is because I been seeing this hidden comment in a number of articles for TV series:

<!-- Episode summaries must be expressed in your own words. Do NOT submit content you find from another web site as it is plagiarism and likely a copyright violation, which Wikipedia cannot accept and will be removed or reverted. Superficially modifying copyrighted content or closely paraphrasing it, even if the source is cited, still constitutes a copyright violation. Summaries should be about 100 to 200 words in length, per WP:TVPLOT, and those substantially less than 100 words are most likely to be scrutinized for possible copyright violation. -->

But the WP:TVPLOT page doesn't say about 100 being the minimum. It doesn't even anything less than 100 being copyvio. So I have a feeling what is stated in the hidden comment might be made up. 104.172.112.209 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

For older obscure series with no video availability, small plot summaries sourced via TV guides are the only option. Something is better than nothing, and it is bad faith to assume everything is a copyvio. That being said, it is a bit odd to do so for modern series which are widely available. Heartfox (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh, it's still a copyvio even if "sourced via TV guides" (you are not supposed to "direct quote" more than just a little bit from other sources), and "TV guides" are WP:Tertiary sources anyway. For really old series, the summaries either have to be in an editor's own words, or summaries just need to be left out of the table. If it's short enough, most editors will assume it's a copyvio, and they have good reason to as a lot of the time it is a copyvio from somewhere (esp. if added by an IP). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course I am not talking about direct quoting from TV guides. What a ridiculous comment. There are many featured articles with a few sentences in the plot summary section that are paraphrased from TV schedule descriptions. Heartfox (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Show us – what specific examples are you talking about? Because what you're describing sounds like bad practice. (Though it wouldn't surprise me – I'm one of the FA/GA skeptics.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Episode guides don't have plot summaries, they have episode teasers designed to drive interest in watching the episode without spoiling it. Missing is what actually happened in the episode. What characters actually did, what they accomplished, where things ended up. Basically the plot summary should be a spoiler for the episode without completely retelling it. A person who actually watched the episode should have no problems summarizing what they saw. 100 to 200 words is reasonable for a TV episode. Less than 100 usually means teaser and is a symptom of someone who didn't watch the episode. More than 200 runs the risk of the copyvio of giving too much detail and retelling the full story. Just guidelines though and depends on complexity of the story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A proper episode summary will almost naturally run 100 words or more. If your episode summary is only, say, 50 words, it's almost certainly not detailed enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I would add that this is mostly based on your run-of-the-mill roughly 22-minute comedy episodes. I think it's perfectly reasonable, and we already have this in many areas, to double that to 200–400 for double length specials or even series that normally run roughly 42-minute episodes, such as The Good Doctor. Or, at the very least, not worrying too much if you have a well-written summary that comes out to 303 words, for example. There are plenty of articles here that have summaries that are, on average, 300 words for the aforementioned double length specials, and they're perfectly fine and still summarize things without retelling everything, as they've been written by expert summary writers. Amaury • 01:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If I were to write a summary of an episode based on the fairy tale Little Red Riding Hood, my summary would be "A girl travels the woods to see her grandmother, but trouble awaits her when she is being targeted by a wolf." How's this for a summary? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• You don't want to stay "Stuff happens", if you are going for a short description you want it long enough to be able to distinguish that episode from other episodes in the series. EG if I were writing a Star Trek plot summary, "The crew of the USS Enterprise explore strange new worlds" is useful, while "The crew of the USS Enterprise deal with a strange virus that makes them go insane" is sufficient to identify "The Naked Time" from other TOS episodes. --Masem (t) 02:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That isn't a summary, that is a teaser. It said nothing about what happened in the story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that a summary is the entire plot of the story? 104.172.112.209 (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's a summary of the whole plot, not just a hint as to what is going to happen. That's a teaser, not a summary. Summaries contain spoilers, by definition. oknazevad (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be assuming a copyvio simply because it's short. But, no there is no minimum, because there will be articles where a plot section isn't suitable at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The question wasn't in regard to 'Premise' sections (which are a different beast) – the question was about Plot/episode summaries. If those are less than about 100 words, they're inherently suspect, for all of the reasons outlined above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, it is unjust to judge or suspect a summary being copyvio simply because it is short and without proof. Unless you come across a media with a summary matching something in an episode list in this encyclopedia, to think of something as copyvio is nothing but paranoia. 104.172.112.209 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It can be rejected for being "too short" and for being a "possible or suspected copyvio". The former is reason enough to reject; the latter isn't an accusation, simply a suspicion (and often a valid one, based on past experience). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Episode summaries are supposed to be written by people who watched the episode and wrote a summary using their own words. A "summary" that looks like a an episode guide teaser is likely either copied directly from an episode guide or is a WP:close paraphrase of what is in some episode guide. Possibly it is written by someone who did watch the episode but is trying to avoid WP:SPOILERS, which a good summary will need to include. Close paraphrasing by changing or reordering the source material does make it harder to detect as a copyvio but it is still not appropriate. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Taskmaster "diss track"

Some help watching over List of diss tracks, where an IP is repeatedly reverting to add a Taskmaster-based joke with a Reddit and a YouTube source, would be appreciated. No secondary source describes it as a "diss track". The song was not released in any form. But I don't want to revert war further than I already have. — Bilorv (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Airdates for seasons released in full then aired weekly

If we have a situation where an entire season is released on a network's digital website in one day, and then it continues to air weekly on the original channel that it's always aired on (where ratings are then calculated and included), how should we list the airdates for this season? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

My general suggestion in cases like this is that you still list the broadcast network dates in the episode table (because of the ratings, etc.). But either above the table in prose, of in a {{Rfn}}-type note, the earlier streaming release date(s) is(are) indicated. In a case like this, the former approach would be preferable to the latter (which works better when only a few single episodes are released via streaming in advance). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:01, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Original broadcast network airdates on the episode table and early releases under the Release section in prose format and/or an {{Efn}} on airdate column (under airdateR) on the episode table. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic, seems there's an agreeance on ideas. Thanks! -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Disney Junior (Southern African TV channel)#Requested move 8 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Disney Junior (Southern African TV channel)#Requested move 8 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User changing weekly seasonal timeline in year-by-year United States network television schedule articles

We got a problem with the user name Nostalgia Zone. They have been replacing seasonal areas of U.S. television schedule articles, replacing them with months as seen in this diff and this diff, as well as the user's contributions that has various year-by-year United States network television schedule articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems they should be consistent but editing per MOS:SEASON. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we should have a resolution on this? BattleshipMan (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:SEASON also says "Referring to a season by name is appropriate when it is part of a formal or conventional name or designation..." In the U.S., the "fall TV season" is a "thing" (as is "summer TV", when generally only reruns aired). (Use of "winter" and "spring" would be more ambiguous – those ones could be replaced by months...) IOW, a good case can be made against removing "fall" and "summer" at the articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Should lists of upcoming programming be allowed

There is a discussion ongoing in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Proposal for a text change relating to WP:NOTTVGUIDE which it would be good to get a consensus on.

Many pages for streaming services have a section for upcoming shows, for example List of Amazon Prime Video original programming#Upcoming original programming, List of HBO original programming#Upcoming programming and List of Apple TV+ original programming#Upcoming original programming.

There were some recent edits to remove these sections citing this rule Wikipedia:NOTTVGUIDE. My opinion is that these sections do not count as Electronic Program Guides so should not fall foul of this rule but it would be good to hear other thoughts. JordanP7893 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Determining country of origin for a Netflix show

Some editors have gone back and forth changing the country of origin for the Netflix original show Dragon Age: Absolution – the show was produced by BioWare (a Canadian company) & Red Dog Culture House (a Korean animation studio). Sources aren't entirely clear on Netflix's involvement outside of distribution; this Deadline source uses the word "collaboration". IMBD (not a RS) states the country of origin is both South Korea & United States. Are there any recommendations to determine the country of origin for a Netflix show? Is it automatically an American show if it is a Netflix original show? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to split multi-part episode numbers at Template:Episode list

Nothing pressing, but over at Template talk:Episode list#Proposal to split EpisodeNumber in NumParts, I've proposed employing EpisodeNumber_1, EpisodeNumber_2, EpisodeNumber2_1, and EpisodeNumber2_2 for multi-part episodes (which would visually split them like <hr>). We currently split all other multi-part fields like Directed by, Written by, airdates, viewers, etc. with NumParts, so this adoption should bring further consistency. If you have any thoughts, please feel free to weigh in there. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Regional sports networks on local TV Templates

I got into a bit of a conflict with Washuotaku regarding regional sports networks on Template:Hampton Roads TV, which ended with him saying there should be "a big discussion regarding" this topic. I figure this talk page would be a good place to start said discussion. Should regional sports networks be allowed to remain on local TV templates such as Hampton Roads TV, Susquehanna Valley TV, Johnstown/Altoona/State College TV, and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre TV, or should they be deleted from all such templates? 100.7.44.80 (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I also would be interested in any specific rules around RSNs. My understanding in the past they were only included if they have operations in the market, not the overall territory (which would be in many markets). --WashuOtaku (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal. Regional just means "not national", not locally based. RSNs are available across many DMAs. The templates are for stations based in the DMA, not all stations available in the DMA. Otherwise it would have to include every national cable channel. oknazevad (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removal as well. The RSNs are fundamentally different from the other stuff in those templates. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Time to make it official. I've already starting removing the RSNs and other networks from the above mentioned templates. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

In major cities, the regional sports networks due indeed have offices and studios, so they shouldn't be removed from places like Chicago or Seattle or Portland or Charlotte or Pittsburgh. Now the smaller surrounding markets...that's a different story, as you can argue they are just "along for the ride", but they shouldn't be yanked from the major cities themselves they are based in. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Action comedy

Discussions related to action comedy below. Editors are invited to comment.

• Talk:Action comedy film § Requested move 3 December 2022
• Talk:Action comedy TV series § Proposed merge of Action comedy film with Action comedy TV series

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Should categories in Category:British children's television series by decade be further subdivided by year?

Each of the decade categories have a lot of pages. Do you think it would make sense to subdivide them by year? RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Critics Top 10 lists

What's the project's consensus on featuring these in articles? I could have sworn there was a large discussion a while back (maybe it was in the film project?) but I can't seem to find any discussions in the archives. I want to say they are discouraged, but I can't recall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it is just on MOS:FILM under MOS:FILMCRITICLIST which states: While a concise summary of critics' top-ten lists can be added, do not list individual critics' lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus. It is not implemented on MOS:TV nor on this project. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Yup, that's what I was thinking of, thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think there should a discussion to implement on MOS:TV though because the list can be long year after year, especially when TV series get renew year after year which will be using a lot of space on the article. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Survivor tables against MOS:ACCESS

Hi, I've brought this up at the Survivor task force, but I'm worried we've reverted all of these articles to not be MOS compliant, despite us having many discussions and an RfC on changing them (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 36#Reality tv show progression and other tables, MOS and WP:ACCESS and multiple items at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force). I've only been away for a couple months working on other items, and we are reintroducing things that stop people using screen readers and an absolute eye-sore of a coloured table.

Is anyone about to give me a hand changing these tables to be MOS compliant? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Explain what about these tables goes against MOS:ACCESS. We added the row and column scopes, they are appropriately sortable, there are no uses of small font, and the use of color is limited only to instances when the tribe name is also given, which means it's compliant. I audited the tribe colors a while back to make sure they were compliant (font color v. background color) using https://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html. We stripped the colors off the voting table. I'm not sure what your issue is now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Tell me how the use of colour helps the reader in any way? It's not in the article at all. It means we get absolutely horrific looking tables like Survivor 43#Season summary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Now... that column marked "Decision Game", I am totally in favor of getting rid of, because there are no explanations as to what the games were, or the prizes won. I tried removing those columns at one point, but there was some formatting error and it didn't work right. If you can oust that column, I'd support that entirely. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That IS horrible. Although, the last time I took an article through GAN it came up that we shouldn't have BOTH a series summary AND an episode list with individual summaries. Last time out I just got rid of the section as a whole, but the episode summaries are pretty overkill as well. I can look at the table, but only if we are intent on keeping it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think there is anything wrong with having that Season Summary table in that it identifies which tribe or player won a reward challenge or immunity challenge, other players who benefitted from the reward, and who was eliminated. There are additional circumstances unique to specific season (like Redemption Island, EOE, etc.). Look at some of the season summary tables PRIOR to 41; I tried to clean them up to make them both neat and compliant. But that Games column in 41-43 is terrible and either needs to go (my preference) or have inline notes added that explain what game was played and what rewards or punishments resulted. As it is, it’s terrible and beyond useless to anyone except diehard fans of the show. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried just a little while ago to eliminate that column from 43 and the resulting formatting was fucked all up the ass. Look at the history to see what happened; I don’t know what the problem was, nor do I have the time and patience to work on it right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the Season Summary v. Individual Episode Summaries refers to the prose and not to this table. It's like what you encountered with the Africa article. Since we have individual episode summaries, we don't need a overall season summary (in prose) above the table like we do right now. That text should probably go. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we edit conflicted whilst both trying to fix that table. Apologies. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me know what you think about it now. I think it looks loads better. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Post-closure, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Skydance Task Force

To anyone that's working in this WikiProject: If anyone's working on articles from Skydance, i have a task force opened up at the WikiProject Animation article called Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group. This task force is open for Video Games, Animation, Film and Television, and Sports. If anyone is interested in this, we have some slots open up. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fox Sports 1#Requested move 15 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fox Sports 1#Requested move 15 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft list of Survivor finalists rejected

Recently, Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–10) is rejected as too specific and somewhat arbitrary, not to mention non-notable. I even figure that narrowing down to winners and runners-up still wouldn't help much, but I can stand corrected. Must I forego this draft and try to improve other articles of winners instead? George Ho (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:UNTV (Philippines)#Requested move 21 December 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:UNTV (Philippines)#Requested move 21 December 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Rfc re WP:NOTDIARY and Ian Botham?

This is about the inclusion (or not) of mention of a major tv interview with a leading figure in the biographical article about that figure, the cricketer Ian Botham.

A sports-focussed editor has removed mention of the interview on grounds of WP:NOTDIARY.

I argue that the interview deserves inclusion as it was a particularly testing television format, unique in the media career of a well-known figure usually interviewed in more flattering ways. I also argue there may be other reasons why editors with an interest in sports - and that sportsman in particular - might wish to suppress mention of the interview.

Our conversation about these matters is on the article's Talk page here.

We would be grateful for other editors to take a look at the issue (in my case as I have a clear WP:COI, the company I work for having been responsible for the interview back in the 1990s).

I believe this page is a good place to discuss the question, as the issue of whether or not a tv show deserves mention in a biographical article will be familiar to editors here. Imho if WP:NOTDIARY is used in relation to tv programmes without considering other factors, then many articles now need fierce editing.

AnOpenMedium (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

As the other party to the discussion, I honestly don't see what mentioning this interview adds to the article as it is completely context-free and merely states that it happened. If this interview is a significant moment in Botham's life, and not just another routine interview then sources need to be found that state this. None of the "testing conditions" mentioned above appear in the article, so how are our readers meant to surmise this? As the editor admits, they have a clear COI and are trying to promote their own interests. I firmly object to the insinuations that I have some other agenda: I have far less of one than someone working for the TV company who did the interview. My main objection is that articles on sportspeople quickly fill up with incidental mentions of non-notable / routine events. Spike 'em (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, this claims to be an RfC, but is not formatted as such and seems to be WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This discussion should take place in one location only. Spike 'em (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for any breach of WikiProtocol. I thought Rfc was WikiShortForm for Request For Comment: if this needs to be moved elsewhere, please can someone more expert than me do this. Despite sporadically contributing to Wikipedia for more than ten years, I still make mistakes and had never heard of FORUMSHOPPING (nor indeed NODIARY) until this week. Sorry. AnOpenMedium (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

An RfC is a specific type of discussion, usually with a clear "Yes/No" or "Option A/B/C" question and outcome, with a particular template that solicits input from editors who follow RfCs. It is used when consensus has not been established in an initial discussion. Soliciting more input at a WikiProject (a good step before going to a formal RfC) is most assuredly not forum shopping. — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:TVOntario#Requested move 5 January 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:TVOntario#Requested move 5 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The Parent Test

The Parent Test appears to belong to this project, but the project banner is missing from the talk page 76.14.122.5 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Talk:The Parent Test --DB1729^talk 23:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Last of Us (TV series)

Please see Talk:The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series)#Percent_vs_%_sign. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

About Last Night (TV Series)

Here's another article that appears to belong to this project, but the banner is missing from the talk page and there are no categories 76.14.122.5 (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done – But this is a game show so I've moved it to About Last Night (game show) as per WP:WPTV. Also, I'm not sure it's notable – 3 of its 7 sources are about the Warner Discovery write-down, rather than the game show itself. But I'll let WP:NPP figure it out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

New template: Television franchise episode count

I've created a new WP:TV template at {{Television franchise episode count}}, to summarize television franchises. Live examples can be seen at Arrowverse, The Walking Dead (franchise) and List of Star Trek television series. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Updates to Template:Episode table/part

I've made a few updates to {{Episode table/part}}; the old parameters can be seen here, whereas the new parameters can be seen here (this has existed for a while, but I never updated the documentation, shame on me). The way we used to define these sorts of parts would be similar to {{Episode table/part|c=#000|nopart=y|p=Chapter 1: ''The End''}} (|nopart= was used to prevent it from reading "Part Chapter 1: The End"), but now it's simpler to do {{Episode table/part|c=#000|chapter=1|subtitle=''The End''}}. I'll go through with AWB to remove the unnecessary |nopart= parameters. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1. A Streetcar Named Marge
2. Animaniacs
3. Aquaman (TV pilot)
4. Bernard Quatermass
5. Carnivàle
6. Cold Feet
7. Homer's Enemy
8. Lisa the Skeptic
9. Pauline Fowler
10. Pilot (Smallville)
11. Press Gang
12. Quatermass II
13. The Joy of Sect
14. The Power of Nightmares
15. The Quatermass Experiment
16. The Simpsons
17. Through the Looking Glass (Lost)
18. Trapped in the Closet (South Park)
19. Troy McClure
20. You Only Move Twice

Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB)

To anyone familiar with the Broadcasters' Audience Research Board (BARB), is there any reason as to why they haven't released any viewer ratings since 18 December? Normally this information is published weekly (and normally about two weeks after broadcast), but there seems to be zero updates. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't know why that page hasn't been updated, but they've released new figures [1]. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Michael Larson

Michael Larson has been nominated for a 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of K04QR-D for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article K04QR-D 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/K04QR-D until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

This a 140-article nomination of non-notable low-power TV stations owned by Innovate Corp. nationally, thus the notice in project space. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

I have nominated Partners in Crime (Doctor Who) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Phil (talk show)

On the Dr. Phil talk show, can a list of episodes be added into the article. I was pointed here. Thank you!Cwater1 (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I personally am very much against episode listings for talk shows and the like on Wikipedia – there are no "plots" to summarize, and it really runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE IMO. This should not be a Wikipedia concern, and should be left to the Wiki/fan sites to cover. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I see now. It is like how The Ellen DeGeneres Show don't have a list of episodes. Sesame Street don't have a list of episodes either. That's because it is covered by Muppet wiki. I would like to make List of Dr. Phil episodes redirect to Dr. Phil (talk show).Cwater1 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Cobra Kai season articles

There's a disruptive editor changing the billing and order of the cast, specifically in the fourth and fifth seasons of the Netflix series. They are even making false/unsourced statements about upgrades/downgrades in actor billings. Need more eyes on the entire set of these season articles - I seem to be the only one reverting edits there which are going against MOS:TVCAST and I don't want to be seen as edit-warring. Plus, there is likelihood the editor in question is evading a block of an IP who has also made similar edits at these articles during the past week. (I have filed a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JEBahrain and waiting for feedback there.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. This proposes support for quality assessment at the article level, recorded in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and inherited by the wikiproject banners. However, wikiprojects that prefer to use custom approaches to quality assessment can continue to do so. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles for every episode

I think it's time we stop making articles for every episode of popular shows. Some examples include The Mandalorian, The Walking Dead and The Simpsons. There's no reason to have an article for every episode, and some of them just plain out fail WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe work should be done to create an actual article out of Wikipedia:Notability (television), instead of it redirecting to Wikipedia:Notability (media)#Programming. A standalone article could cover pilots/series articles (ideally once it is confirmed filming on the actual season has started similarly to WP:NFF), season articles, episode articles, and other articles related to television and are covered by this project and MOS. Wikipedia:Notability (film) could be a good template to follow if we want to undertake this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd say only about 1% of episode articles are actually done right. Amaury • 18:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fully in favor of reworking WP:TVSHOW (the "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." line is massively misunderstood to mean "airs nationally = always notable!!", which has become a real problem, esp. for (non-notable) TV movies) as suggested, but that would be a big project. Maybe the best approach would be for somebody to just volunteer ("NOT IT!!") to write up a draft of that, and then have the rest of us comment on it and make suggestions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

From the episode articles of the shows mentioned I've seen (like The Simpsons) the majority do meet WP:GNG. As long as GNG is meet I have no problem with editors creating these articles if that is what the editors want to work on. The Simpsons is one of the few shows that have a standalone WikiProject and does quite well. They have 344 GA articles with most being episode articles. I don't feel that there is a need to create stronger notability guidelines that would cause a lot of them to be subject to AFD. If someone wants to take on the task of reading each episode article and evaluating it against GNG then be my guest. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 18:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe true for that, probably true for Seinfeld. But should there be an episode article for every episode of "South Park"?! What about SpongeBob SquarePants?! Because that's pretty much the situation we have now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Checking List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, most episodes actually don't have an article. South Park episodes do though. El Millo (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) South Park is in similar vein of The Simpsons in that every episode generally gets reviewed at this point with topical events covered in the episodes sometimes becoming noteworthy like Band in China which caused the show to be banned in China. I don't read the South Park episode articles much myself but the ones I have seen do meet GNG. Do we need an article for every episode of SpongeBob SquarePants? No we do not and there isn't enough reception to cause the majority of the series episodes to meet GNG. I do agree with you about the bit you quoted IJBall that is taken out of context where people think "aired nationally = Wikipedia article". That needs to be rewritten and clarified because other users could think shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians or The Only Way Is Essex should have articles for each episode when in fact they do not. Individual episode articles should be treated as any other article in my opinion, evaluated on their own merits not because it is one of the handful of shows that has an article for each episode. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 18:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The standard should not be "gets reviewed by some sites on the web" – the standard should be (as per, for example, WP:NFO: "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." (emphasis mine)). Game of Thrones likely easily passes this standard with many of its episodes. I doubt South Park does to the level of pretty much every episode getting its own standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It likely would be worthwhile to identify those critics or at least examples of them for English-based television (likely meaning the US set, Canadian set, UK set and Aussie set will be different). --Masem (t) 19:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple episodes from Seinfeld and South Park are WP:PLOTONLY. The Burning (Seinfeld) and Season Finale (South Park) are good examples of why every episode should not have an article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

OK looking at those two articles and evaluating them against WP:GNG The Burning (Seinfeld) would fail WP:GNG and is a clear example of WP:PLOTONLY. In its current form it most likely wouldn't survive an AFD. However before nominating it the best thing to do would be to check the almighty Google or the evil Bing to see if the episode does have reliable, significant coverage from secondary sources that can improve the article. Season Finale (South Park) in its current form is mostly WP:PLOTONLY however it has two reliable, secondary sources providing some reception about the episode. The reception does demonstrate the episode was covered. The episode article in this case (given it aired in 2019) could be improved upon by adding viewership information (which most likely is available) and checking other secondary, reliable general places outside of IGN and The A.V. Club for more coverage that often write about South Park episodes. If by chance IGN & The A.V. Club are the only secondary sources and viewership information is unavailable then it would be a candidate for AFD or redirect to the season article. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FTR, The Burning (Seinfeld) should just be converted to a redirect right now. It's been tagged for 3 years! It's had its chance: nuke it to a redirect! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Alucard 16, after doing some WP:BEFORE for The Burning, I nominated it. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If episode articles only contain just a plot and/or reception, generally they fail WP:GNG. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• @YoungForever: Thank you! This is what I was trying to say. A plot and two reviews do not grant an article notability. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think broad questions like "Do we need an article for every episode of X" will be answered according to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We should have articles on episodes that are discussed in reliable sources. If there is significant coverage of the episode, then it is acceptable to have an article for that episode. Some Dude From North Carolina has nominated three large batches of articles for nomination today, for Simpsons episodes, Game of Thrones episodes and Walking Dead episodes. I expect that they will all be kept, because of the individual variations between coverage of each episode. If you want to clean out the non-notable episodes, that should be considered on an individual basis. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually I agree in this case the general question "Should each episode of a popular TV series have its own article?" falls exactly within WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If every episode of a series happens to meet GNG (even barely) there shouldn't be an issue as long as GNG is meet. It seems some forget about the episode coverage task force. Looking at the batch AFD for The Simpson episodes all of these episode articles pass WP:GNG otherwise they wouldn't have escaped the purview of WP:NPP which requires new page patrol reviewers to check the article against WP:GNG and any other associated nobility guidelines we have at en~Wiki. The only article I would take any issue over is I, Carumbus because 4 of the sources out of 10 are Tweets from Al Jean which makes them primary sources. However I would just slap a more sources needed tag on it. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Given current discussions at WT:N there are two ways that the goal I'm seeing here can be achieved. First, to set the stage it would seem that if you look at our subject specific notability guidelines, we have three functions these do 1) set what are criteria for presumed notability for a standalone article 2) set conditions where it is not appropriate to make an article even if the GNG is met, and 3) set what types of sources are good or poor for notability in that area. For this, you are talking a two pronged approach: you can set (1) for episodes to require two reviews from well-established critics (which you should define; eg it sounds like you want your Rolling Stone or NYTimes which do not routine review shows but only focus on critical darlings (Better Call Saul and Watchmen I know personally) but not your IGN or AV Club (which touch everything) as the quality here) as a presumption for notability, which is good. You can also spell out (2) that while you could have a whole host of reviews from weaker sites (The IGNs and AVclubs), that if there is nothing more than those reviews and ratings, that while for any other topic those may be fine for the GNG, there would need to be more coverage in terms of development or legacy to have the episode article to keep the standalone or otherwise these would be merged back to episode lists.

The only only other thing with that is that for shows that are reviewed in low quality sources, you can usually find a RT score, and thus I would try to find a way to include the per-episode RT score into episode lists when shows are merged back. That gives the reader a quick link to check the reviews that were given without us having to give the reviews. --Masem (t) 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I can try to dig it up if you want, but I think we've established on a past WPTV discussion (maybe WPFilm) that RT is only worth citing when it lists more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: What would the process be if this project wanted to even consider creating a standalone notability article? Can it be started in the draft space? And where would there need to be notifications that this is being crafted/considered? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

As its more a guideline than an article, it can go to WP space, tagging it with {{proposed}}. When you are happy with it (and to that I mean, the TV project is happy with it), then you can advertize getting to promoted to a full guideline via VPP, CENT, and other reasonable places through an RFC. You don't need to notify the whole of en.wiki as it is drafted, only the version you want to become a guideline. --Masem (t) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this should come down to ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT. If an episode is to have its own article, it needs to stand on its own as a notable topic in terms of the WP:GNG, with everything that that entails: significant coverage, reliable secondary sources, independent sources, and not indiscriminate information. --Slashme (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Some Dude From North Carolina, Favre1fan93, Amaury, IJBall, Alucard 16, Masem, Young Forever, Toughpigs, and Bilorv: I've been reading the discussion and didn't find a place to jump in because you all seem to generally agree with each other and with my view that 1. not all episodes, even of very notable shows, should have an article, and 2. there are currently a lot of episode articles that do not pass N. A first step, rather than debate a guideline, could be to bring up all the episode articles (from "List of episodes of X" pages and categories like WP episode coverage) and !vote on which are suitable for their own article. That would probably make the criteria for a guideline clearer, and clean-up episode articles at the same time because then someone could take the no votes to AfD. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My suggestion is to set the notability guideline for television episodes here first (getting global support for that), *then* come at the articles armed with that guideline which should have consensus. It will be a lot easier then to justify the merges of existing episode articles (eg you are doing up against attitudes against AFDs like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triggerfinger (The Walking Dead) that a consensus-based notability guideline will easy help to get around. --Masem (t) 14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I generally agree with this approach. But there are specific (flagrant) instances, right now, like The Burning (Seinfeld), that clearly fail WP:GNG, and should simply be boldly redirected back to the relevant season article or LoE article, or can be taken (individually) to WP:AfD in the meantime... But I do agree that Some Dude From North Carolina's "bulk delete" approach is unlikely to be fruitful, esp. in the absence of a strong and clear 'Notability for television' guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Do keep in mind that some will likely try to claim sources do exist (eg I found a review on that episode at AV Club but not much more) when just going off the GNG. That's fair to do, you're just going to get a lot of pushback if the project isn't behind it. --Masem (t) 15:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
        • To clarify my position, I do not object to every episode in a series having its own episode article. I object to the general notion that a series can't possibly have most or all the episodes as individual articles which is what the initial post was about. The OP did two small bundles and one massive bundle at AFD but didn't elaborate specifically how the episode articles in question failed the existing GNG guidelines OP just said "failed WP: GNG" which is not enough of a justification to nominate so many articles like the OP did in my opinion. I see no problem with every episode of a series having its own article as long as GNG guidelines are meet. I object to things like "must have at least three reviews and one of them being from Rolling Stone" or something like "reviews from IGN and The A.V. Club can't be used to establish significant coverage" because it would place an undue burden at NPP. (Like how can IGN be good for video games articles but not episodes of a television series?) Also before blindly merging or putting an episode article up for AFD the proposer should do a quick search to see if there are more sources available than currently in the article. Since a lot of articles are created as stubs with the intent to be expanded on later a bit of due diligence should be made. I have no objection for clarification of TV notability guidelines that would clarify something like three or more reviews (or something along those lines) are needed to establish significant coverage along with details about the production, viewership information, cultural impact and/or awards (if applicable). I wasn't able to find more sources on The Burning (Seinfeld) so be bold and merge it like IJBall suggested. Episode articles should be reviewed on a case by case basis just like any other article on Wikipedia not in batches simply because a single TV show shouldn't have episode articles for every episode. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

          I think it's appropriate to nominate GNG fails like IJBall's suggestion for AfD. Seinfeld has some landmark episodes that have been discussed a great deal, and many that haven't; 1990s sitcoms didn't get reviews for every single episode. Modern sci-fi/fantasy shows like The Mandalorian and Game of Thrones are much more likely to have every episode discussed at length, and I think the guidelines need to be clarified for those. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

          • Talking about Seinfeld, could someone take a look at this AFD? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk)
            • I would have to agree with Rhino131's keep reasoning as the user was able to find a review from The AV Club, an article from The Week that discuss the episode. They also found sources from Uproxx, two interviews (one from Rolling Stone), etc. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
            • I trimmed the plot description and used the links from the deletion discussion to add some meta-discussion. It's now at least an acceptable start-class article of borderline notability. --Slashme (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, a similar discussion is taking place at Talk:The_Simpsons_(season_32)#Merging_Discussion. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposing that merge while this discussion and the AFD is happening is not the way to do this. Let this discussion and the AFD finish and then propose your next steps based on the consensus. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Working draft created

All, per Masem's suggestion, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is now a working draft proposal for a guideline. Please feel free to edit thoughts there, as well as continue discussion on that talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Still busy these days, but I will try and look at and comment, on this over the next several days. If we go with a separate WP:NTV guideline, I'll have several concerns/areas of interest: "refining" the "aired nationally" statement so it's clear that "aired nationally" doesn't automatically mean "notable!", TV pilots (so that we can hopefully avoid unfortunate AfD decisions like this one), TV episodes (not every episode of even the most popular TV series is going to justify a standalone article, and many series will have no epiosdes that qualify for an article!), TV movies (unlikely to be notable most of the time if released on a U.S. cable channel over the last 20 years), and as Masem suggests – what "level" of reviewing do we want to set as a benchmark (and, FTR, AV Club should be under what ever reviewing level benchmark we come up with!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, just as a general concept – how do you know any TV-related topic qualifies for an article? – When there is enough sourcing to properly justify a 'Reception' and a 'Production' section. Too many editors also take the approach that "reviews = notable!!", but if a TV project isn't also getting WP:RS coverage on the 'Production' end, I'm going to suggest that, as a general concept, that topic is probably not robust enough to justify a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally not a fan of ever having YANG (yet another notability guideline). It's almost always better to work down the list of articles that you think fail today's guidelines and either improve them or remove them. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's actually useful for exactly the reason Masem suggests – there is less likely to be confusion over "what a notable TV program" is, if it's clearly spelled out somewhere how the "WP:GNG test" gets applied to the specific "subject" (TV shows, in this case). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I find it a bit shocking at how prominent/active (in my opinion) the TV project is, that a standalone guideline page didn't exist since at the moment, all of the project's notability guidelines are contained to a single section at the general media notability article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that the finalised SNG will need a full RFC as it affects 1000s of articles, including quite old ones ( Bewitched has 100+ episode articles, or it did the last time I looked), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• This is an absurd attempt to undermine community consensus (see WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS or the explicit consensus at Talk:The Mandalorian) that these episodes are in fact notable. A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes. Remember per WP:PROPOSALS: “Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.” If you think certain episodes don’t meet the GNG, fine, but you cannot make a more difficult threshold to pass because you don’t like the existing consensus and feel there “shouldn’t” be such articles. -- Calidum 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  Agree, the stipulations are far too prescriptive and detailed as if it is a manual of style for a featured article. Obviously a production section is preferred but is it really essential? When the article is a fleshed out start class with multiple reliable sources secondary coverage such as national reviews is the absence of a production section really the breaker.The Film Project has defined reviews by national critics as reviews with a large national audience not the reputation of the individual reviewer. There is also the problem that production details often do not come from reliable sources as defined by independence - for example an autobiography of the writer, producer or director, or a source affiliated with the production company. There are GAs that use the dvd documentaries of the film or tv show extensively for the production sections. Overall the qualifications for a episode article as proposed are too onerous in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Notability (television) is a working draft so you are welcome to edits or adjust anything there. Nothing's been finalized yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Favre1fan93 says that edits are welcome, so I took them up on the offer. :) I edited the "Television episodes" section to say that episode-specific reviews contribute to notability.

  In the first paragraph, the text said that having reviews "is common to the vast majority of television episodes." This is not true; there are thousands of television episodes that have never been specifically reviewed, especially pre-internet. It also said, "an article composed of just these elements is most likely redundant to the main article." This is also untrue: the main show article does not contain reviews for individual episodes.

  I also changed "While having a significant number of reviews is a step towards considering a television episode notable" to "Having a significant number of reviews contributes to considering a television episode notable", and made it more clear that coverage of production aspects is a suggestion for creating a higher-quality article.

  I'd be interested to know what other people think about these changes. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  That all looks good to me. (On my end, I'm not taking a look at this until probably next week...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  I just created the page to start making edits. It is by no means "closed" or restrictive to anyone for editing. I hope any of my comments regarding that page have not come off that way. Yes, I myself have started making edits there, but I want others to edit this, so it isn't just me, and all can then discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  "A group of editors here cannot suddenly decide the GNG is no longer good enough for tv episodes." - what part of the proposal as it stands at the moment is more restrictive than the GNG? --Slashme (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  The advice I'm seeing in the draft is the same type of advice that is at WP:NFF for future films - which is where even if good sourcing exists that could potentially meet the GNG, articles on yet-produced films should not be made. Per the current discussion at WT:N on what functions an SNG can do, this appropriate is fully within practice for the proposed TV SNG. (If/when this becomes a guideline, it will be a wholly separate matter of how we'd go about handling the hundreds of episodes that might run afoul of that). --Masem (t) 18:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  Some editors in the above discussion and the one regarding The Mandolorian seem to suggest that reviews alone -- no matter who publishes them or how many reviews there are -- should not establish notability. WP:N suggests no such thing. It's also remember what WP:SNG says about subject notability guidelines. "[Subject notability guidelines] are considered shortcuts to meeting the general notability guideline" and "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article." -- Calidum 19:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've added some language that explains that we need to show that to rise beyond IINFO, an article about an episode needs to find sources that discuss the episode at a meta level, not just recount the plot, and need to show that it's had an impact beyond that that any ROTM episode would have. --Slashme (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

  What is a "meta level"? — Toughpigs (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• As far as reviews go, I do say that reviews grant notability since an outlet is extremely unlikely to review every episode that airs. It's the same premise as with film reviews: there will always be far, far more episodes of any given show than there will be outlets that can or will review them. What I would argue is that rather than argue that reviews shouldn't give notability, the number of reviews needed to establish notability should be raised to say, 3-4. That will eliminate a great many episodes as far as notability goes. Length and in-depth qualities of a review would be harder to concretely nail down, as a good writer can nail down a review in 1-2 paragraphs as long as they're concise and clear.

As far as making the critic nationally known, that's a bit harder to nail down since the criteria is so loose when you consider the reach of the Internet. An article of any type posted on the internet can be seen on a global scale and a review from a well-known, major newspaper that isn't posted online could be seen as non-national. The reason I mention this is that there are multiple countries where Internet coverage is a little harder to gain. South Africa is kind of notorious for this, to the point where one of the keynote speakers at the 2015 WikiConference USA actually went into some detail about how difficult it was for some SA topics to meet notability guidelines because of the lack of web presence of many news outlets. I feel that the best way to establish whether a source is usable is to determine if it's reliable and if the source is in-depth, as otherwise this could have a severe negative impact on non-English or Western media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the problem is the opposite – anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows. This is why the metric needs to be higher than "I found 3 reviews on the internet = notable!!". The issue is that some editors want to define any coverage as "significant coverage" (as per GNG), but the standard should be higher than that. That is why I like WP:NFO's "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics" standard, because that at least makes it clear you can't just take any old "review" website you find on the web and use that to try to get "by" GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Last month, Some Dude From North Carolina nominated seven Game of Thrones episodes and an astonishing eighty-nine Walking Dead episodes for deletion, saying that they failed GNG. I looked at a random episode in each bunch, and found that "Kill the Boy" (Game of Thrones) had reviews from The Atlantic, IGN and Vanity Fair, while "Coda" (Walking Dead) had reviews from the Daily Beast, Entertainment Weekly and iO9. I don't think that the Atlantic, Vanity Fair and Entertainment Weekly are run by a group of friends. IJBall, do you have an example of an AfD discussion that ended as Keep because someone in the First World got a group of friends together? — Toughpigs (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• We also need to remember that Wikipedia is meant to cover more than just First World countries, which is why so many of the notability guidelines seem to be so light and easy to pass. Most are written that way because they aren't meant to apply solely to US and other Western-centric topics. They're also meant to help make it easier to have coverage on topics concerning non-First World countries, where coverage may be available but much more difficult to come by. Re-tooling the notability guidelines with First World countries specifically in mind will only have a severely detrimental impact on Wikipedia's coverage of other countries. There's also the issue of coverage of women, minorities, and subcultures that tend to have a dearth of coverage in very mainstream sources. Here are some examples:
  • A South African episode doesn't have South African media coverage that Wikipedia editors can easily discover, however they do have coverage by way of reviews in Western media websites such as iO9 and SlashFilm. The episode was a major release in its area, but the majority of coverage isn't online because the media outlets don't have a major web presence or won't come up in a Western Google search. Google search has a history of not properly crawling the websites of non-Western countries.
  • A director creates an episode for a TV series that touches upon issues that they personally experienced as a transgender individual. The mainstream public generally doesn't cover LGBT shows and episodes the same way they would for say, Game of Thrones, so the coverage is predominantly reviews in places like PinkNews, AfterEllen, and Queerty.
  • An episode of a horror show gets light coverage but gains reviews in places like Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and the Rue Morgue website. The websites are not well known outside of the horror community but are major within the horror fandom.

If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability that will severely impact Wikipedia's ability to cover non-Western and mainstream topics as a whole, as some episodes of shows that are non-Western and/or deal with specific subcultures or marginalized groups may not gain substantial coverage outside of reviews. As a horror fan I can say that shows like TWD and AHS are definitely outliers and do not represent typical coverage for the average horror themed show. The average horror TV show (as well as film and other media) is unlikely to gain substantial coverage, let alone coverage in places Wikipedia sees as reliable.

Now when it comes to the argument of nationally known critics, this is also an area that can negatively impact coverage on Wikipedia. What do we consider nationally known? It can be argued that if something is online it has the potential for global impact, as long as it is discoverable. We can't judge websites targeted towards subcultures and marginalized groups the same way that we would a website targeted towards the mainstream public. While a horror fan would see Bloody Disgusting or Rue Morgue as obviously major media outlets within the horror community, others may dismiss them as too minor when comparing them to even predominantly online outlets like the Hollywood Reporter or Deadline. The same could be argued for coverage in other countries where the newspaper may not be known to Western readers but be considered a big deal in its country - but just not have an online presence or much of one.

Where this concerns me is that while this deals with specific episodes, this argument has been applied to film articles and could also be very easily applied to articles for entire series. By severely limiting what can make an individual episode notable it makes it very easy to similarly limit what makes an entire series notable as there are many series that rely heavily on review/reception coverage to establish notability and its impact on media. While this may seem like a stretch to some, this would also impact coverage on the creative professionals involved in the production of said media, as there have been arguments that if a person's work doesn't have an article that they are by extension not notable either.

Wikipedia has already been severely criticized when it comes to its coverage of marginalized groups and non-Western countries, to the point where academic and scholarly articles have broached the topic. This is also a frequent topic of conversation at Wikipedia conferences as well. My concern here is that many of the arguments for this are looking at very mainstream media like Game of Thrones, South Park, and The Mandalorian, shows that are already household names and aren't considering that tailoring a guideline to restrict episode articles for those shows will in turn have an impact on articles for non-mainstream, non-Western media. I know that this isn't the intent of the guideline by any stretch, but I think that extreme caution needs to be applied when it comes to reducing or removing the impact of reviews towards notability and limiting what can be seen as a reliable source as it impacts more than just these mainstream media. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• I also want to note that I have actually seen cases where people have argued that horror outlets like Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central are minor and shouldn't count towards notability. It's honestly relatively common, particularly when you have a major outlet that is well respected in the horror community (and has been cited as RS by academic and scholarly sources) but lacks an article on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Toughpigs: What does Some Dude From North Carolina AfD activities have to do with the point I was trying to make? Some Dude From North Carolina's actions seemed tied to my point as a way to denigrate it. I'm not defending his actions at all, though I agree with his general view that there are far too many "episode" articles on Wikipedia, and that a lot of them obviously fail WP:GNG and WP:ALLPLOT outright (though I don't agree with him that GoT or TWD were likely to be examples of this!)... As to your question, I can't think of a specific AfD where that has been an issue, but I believe I have seen some WP:AfCs that were probably swayed by what I would consider to be "lesser" (i.e. probably not good enough) use of "sourcing". And I can definitely think of instances where articles weren't taken to AfD because the author had strategically placed just enough (what I consider to be crappy) "sourcing" that no one would want to bother with the fight over it at AfD. I would like our standards to be higher than "Well, I'm not going to bother to take this article to AfD because there's just enough crummy sourcing that I'm going to get too much pushback at AfD to make this worth my time to nominate".

"If we argue that reviews shouldn't count towards notability..." @ReaderofthePack: No one is arguing that "reviews shouldn't count towards notability". What some of us are saying is that we'd like to see more than just reviews to consider a TV topic truly notable (in most cases). Add: Also, I think my point is that not all "reviews" are equal (weight/significance) – I don't have a problem with Dread Central, but I might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes. I don't know if TV programs receive coverage of production aspects in a country like South Africa, but I've got to think there's at least some coverage like that even there (though, perhaps mostly in "trade" magazines?...). Certainly at the U.S./UK/Canada/Australia-level, I think a lot of us would like to see reviews+production info, not just reviews, esp. for TV episode articles, which tend to succumb to WP:ALLPLOT without this balance. And that's true for both TV and film. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that not all reviews are the same, and that the LA Times and Entertainment Weekly are better than random blogs. But you said, "anyone in the First World can get a group of friends together and put out a website where they "review" TV episodes. This is rather the current problem – anyone can review U.S. or UK TV shows." If you don't know of any examples where the "group of friends" level of review was used to meet notability, then no, this is not "the current problem." — Toughpigs (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What else would you call something like A.V. Club? This is the kind of site I'm thinking of. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

might have more a problem with AV Club or TV Tropes - but TV Tropes doesn't publish reviews, or anything. I now consider it to basically be a fan wiki, a world away from A.V. Club (or any other actual publication). Kingsif (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What you're saying is that reviews shouldn't be enough, however that will effectively end up equating to people not seeing reviews as a source of notability. This could in turn weaken other non-review sources. If say, twenty reviews in all of the major newspapers or subculture websites aren't enough to establish notability then someone could argue that a handful of other types of coverage wouldn't be enough either, particularly if they aren't multiple pages long.

Perhaps what could be a good alternative is to make a guide that would help others learn how to use review type articles more effectively. There are many review articles that discuss elements such as production, themes, and other things that fall outside of the realm of "my opinion is X" (for example, delving into comparisons on the director or writer's work to past works or episodes to comment on character growth). I don't think that many people realize that they can use this information to make an article more than just a review and plot synopsis, not just for film and TV articles, but for most media in general. Not only that, but also help show them what sources in general can be used and which shouldn't. I know that there are some guides out on this, but few that are very user friendly or easily discovered by newbies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments I agree there are far too many non-notable episode coverages on Wikipedia. Not convinced on a bright line of "20 reviews". One editor seems to think the project may produce "rubbish" and has no authority (no effect) but a large consensus does. The vast majority of episode coverage I have seen fail GNG with no significant coverage, are FANCRUFT with mainly all plot, and I comment those looking into this. Otr500 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

speaking of items, will there be a tv version of {{film draft notice}}? Starzoner (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Starzoner: If this notability guideline materializes, there will in theory be a "NFF" equivalent that a template could be made to state. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Source it or nom it for deletion

Is there any reason List of programs broadcast by TeleRadyo should exist, or is it very ripe for a prod delete? I looked through multiple random dates through the years of this page and besides the occasional source here and there for why something was shown or not shown, this page has never had sufficient sourcing (currently 100% unsourced). Wasn't sure if I should add the "unsourced please fix" banner, or mark it for prod deletion (leaning prod). Thoughts? Zinnober9 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for The Real Housewives of Atlanta

The Real Housewives of Atlanta has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Cuphead Show! § Cleanup the article

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Cuphead Show! § Cleanup the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of South Park episodes § "Films". The discussion concerns how to list films as episodes for a television series, where films are considered major works and television episodes are considered minor works. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Awards for individuals on show articles?

I tried searching the archives- didn't find anything from the past asking regarding this, but even if I missed it, probably still wise to check in about this now. What awards exactly should be included in the 'awards' section of a TV show's article? All MOS:TV offers is at MOS:TVRECEPTION: "Awards and nominations can also go in this section."

Obviously main show awards/nominations should be listed, such as 'Favorite TV Show', 'Favorite Comedy', 'Favorite Animated Series', etc. However, should individuals' nominations/awards also be included for the main show's article? Such as 'Favorite TV Actor/Actress', 'Favorite Supporting Actor/Actress in a TV Show', etc.

Not sure if there's any guidance on this anywhere, but many main TV show articles either includes or doesn't include these kind of awards. Would probably be beneficial to clarify this if there's nothing regarding this already. Magitroopa (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I was just going by what I have seen other users have stated before. It would make the most seance for just the show to be there as actors/actress are about them and not the show itself. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Think standard practice is including any awards for the show, including that people earn for the show. Indagate (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is standard practice for film articles as well. If someone gets an award for directing a series or starring in a series or whatever else it may be, that is relevant information for the series article. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that there's a difference between directing and producing, which goes to the whole project, and "acting" awards which technically go to the individual. I'm in the camp that would argue that acting awards should be listed on the pages of the actors only, not on the show/film page (at least, in some cases). But other crew awards (e.g. writing) also are pretty much for the whole show, and so obviously be included with the show/film awards. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I have been looking on several articles, and have seen a mix of both like on all of the Schneider's bakery shows expect Henry Danger and Danger Force including several Disney shows. I do think there needs to be some clear direction on where to go.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If the acting award is strongly linked to a specific role in a TV series or series episode it should get listed in both the actor article and the series article. Major acting awards that mentioned both the actor and the series, much as major acting awards for film get counted for both the actor and the film. The actor for doing a great job acting and the shows for providing the script, directing, setting, cast and crew to support that actor in delivering the performance in the context of the show. On the other hand, stuff like favorite actor isn't really about acting merit in a show, it is just a popularity award and really only belongs to the actor, not any show they are in. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe that if an award ceremony grants an accolade to an individual for their contribution to a project (such as a film/television series), the project itself also wins the award, especially since the award ceremony mentions the project itself (ex. Kids' Choice Awards/Critics' Choice Awards). For instance, a movie studio is going to state that their film has won the Academy Award for Best Actor/Best Actress, because, in the end, the actor/actress delivered a performance in the film. And their performance is related to a character belonging to the film. So, if an actor/actress wins an award that is related to a film/television series they have worked on, the page of the film/television series should include the award. Any award is given to an individual (ex. makeup artist/composer). Even an award like Best film/television series is granted to an individual. Nobody gives an award to a piece of media. It is not a person. Otherwise, we should remove all of the accolades of a film/television series. But most importantly, I do not see why it would bother anybody to see an article including awards for individuals. --Higher Further Faster (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "Best Actor" and so on should be included at the TV/film page as it's relevant information about the show's success, mainstream appeal or critical acclaim. — Bilorv (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Stand-Up Spotlight

Would some members of this WP:TV mind taking a look at Stand-Up Spotlight and assessing it? Perhaps this has potential to be a viable stub? It was created yesterday directly in the main space; so, perhaps WP:DRAFTIFY is an option. Anyway, there's a request for assistance posted at Talk:Stand-Up Spotlight. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I would vote to draftify that in it's current state. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That's So Raven

OK, how did this get promoted to WP:GA status last year?!! (This is another example of why I don't trust the GA/FA process much at all! It looks like there was all of one reviewer on this, and thus just two editors participating in the process.)

The section ordering doesn't follow MOS:TV, it is entirely missing a 'Cast'-type section (with too much of that put into the lede, which is just supposed to summarize article content, not introduce it!), and the 'Awards' table is a 'rowspan' nightmare/mess. I'm going to ping SatDis, Baffle gab1978, Geraldo Perez, and Amaury to this discussion. IMO, this article needs to be revised to address all these issues, or it should be delisted as a GA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, ouch! As always, happy to fix any issues to make articles the best as possible. SatDis (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a peer review so that I can address any concerns. SatDis (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that GAs don't have to comply with all elements of the MOS, so using a different layout for the article is acceptable. Also, the MOS rarely prescribes an exact format for all articles; for instance, MOS:TV says that cast information could be included "as a subsection of the 'Production' section" in some cases. For a good example of this, see the article for Hannah Montana (promoted to FA last year). RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:GA's should represent the best a WP has to offer. Massively deviating from the MOS is a terrible way to accomplish that, and is another reason I dislike/don't have faith in the GA process – it's what "GA editors" think are "good articles", generally not what the WP (or the general readership) thinks are "good articles".

That said Hannah Montana is still a better set-up article than That's So Raven – at least the former, has a 'Premise' section that obviously includes character info. But in both cases, I'd argue the ledes are "overstuffed". (And why is the cast/actor info only represented in the lede, and not (again) in the 'Story and characters' section?! IOW, we shouldn't be "forcing" readers to go to the 'Casting' section to figure out who plays whom!!) But it still has other problems – there's no reason the 'Episodes' section shouldn't be in the 'Premise' section or immediately below it (again, that follows the MOS); and the 'Awards' table displays shitty use of rowspan here as well. (Put another way, there is clearly a trend for huge 'Awards' table when splitting these up into subsections or multiple smaller tables would be a much better, and much more readable, way to go – I see this again and again at 'Awards' article WP:FLs...) But in general, I might argue that Hannah Montana is just "over-written" (does this topic merit this much prose?!).

Anyway, it kind of blows me away what's considered "good" or "featured" among the TV (and often the BLP) articles, as I often do not consider them among the "best" of our articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Two of my previous articles (both FA) Hannah Montana and Wizards of Waverly Place have the cast information embedded into the "Production" section, as is also done here with That's So Raven. I believe the lead briefly summarises article content in as much detail as the aforementioned FAs do. SatDis (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's obviously the trend with GA's/FA's – but is it the best way to go? Does it serve WP:Readers first better than a dedicated 'Cast and characters' section?!... I'd argue it doesn't. But it's what all the GA's/FA's seem to do, and everyone just follows what the last one of these did.

I think it merits a "rethink". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed split of page for Amity Blight from List of The Owl House characters page

Hello everyone! I would like your input on a discussion on the List of The Owl House characters talk page, about whether to split off the section for Amity Blight into its own page. Currently, the page draft is available at Draft:Amity Blight, and consensus in this discussion is important to determine whether this character should get its own article. Thanks and I hope to see your comments. Historyday01 (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of references to a blog

Hello everyone! Yesterday, I realised that several lists of episodes cite this particular blog for episode viewership ratings: Ratings Ryan.

I first noticed these references in List of South Park episodes in episodes from season 1 to 10, so I pinged the editor who added them in the talk page. This was before I searched for the blog on Wikipedia and realised that the lists of episodes from several other shows cite it: Futurama, Breaking Bad, Big Brother, The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Friday Night Lights and many more. Therefore, I started a discussion in the reliable sources noticeboard (in which I listed the diffs of the edits of the editor who added the source to the South Park list), but it hasn't been getting much attention.

Because of the lack of favourable evidence towards the reliability of the blog (such as for the writer's subject-matter expertise or decent editorial policies), I plan to revert the edits that added these citations. This would require checking many articles about TV series seasons, so I am requesting some help here to remove links to the blog and keep the rating numbers reliably sourced as they might had been before (or removed if no appropriate reliable source that reports on the ratings had been cited). If anyone is interested, I recommend searching for "Ratings Ryan" or "Ratings Recap" in quotation marks on the Wikipedia search bar to check all instances of references to the blog. If anyone finds evidence that the blogger is an expert on the subject, please notify me. Thanks! ObserveOwl (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I came here from RSN and am unfamiliar with any WikiProject-specific practices y'all might have, but it seems like he does cite sources on at least some of his posts - For example, in this post he says the data is from Nielsen Media Research via The Hollywood Reporter, The Los Angeles Times, TV Tango, and Media Life Magazine. It would be time consuming but it might be worth trying to track down the original sourcing, or at least making a list somewhere if what articles cited the website, before removing the data - We can always tag with in the meantime. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 18:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

All of the sources above are available online through various databases (Newspapers.com, Archive.org, etc.). The only one inaccessible to Wikipedia editors online is The Hollywood Reporter, which is on ProQuest but you need a subscription from a different institution as The Wikipedia Library doesn't cover it. I understand perhaps citing a blog once in a while (and have probably done so myself, mostly as a temporary thing), but these wide-ranging references citing a blog for an entire season of episodes and in multiple series articles... hell no. The references really need to be culled before its gets out of hand. Just leave the statistics and get rid of the ref. I am surprised that the website hasn't been taken down for copyright infringement yet. Nielsen ratings are copyrighted and he is posting PDFs of ratings that were taken down for copyright infringement before from other websites (i.e. USA Today) onto his own website and running ads on it. This is really also a WP:YTCOPYRIGHT thing. Heartfox (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Ratings Ryan is definitely not a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#U.S. TV ratings sources. They get their sources from SpoilerTV most of the time and SpoilerTV is not a reliable source as it a fan-operated website. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Series overview updates

It was brought to my attention that {{Series overview}} had series issues in mobile view. I've updated the issue, but had to update a few articles to compensate for this; in summary, if you use {{Series overview}} with with the |multiseries=y and |dontclose=y parameters for transcluding, such as at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Five, do not use {{End|html=y|Series overview}} to close the table anymore, use {{Series overview/end}}. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok, good to know. I'll definitely keep that in mind going forward. Historyday01 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Accused (2023 TV series) § Content dispute

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Accused (2023 TV series) § Content dispute. Editors are needed to weigh in on this in order to reach a consensus. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:The Reluctant Traveler (TV series)#Requested move 23 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Reluctant Traveler (TV series)#Requested move 23 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Fuzheado | Talk 03:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:History of LGBT characters in animation

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:History of LGBT characters in animation#Page name change/purpose?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nine Regional#Requested move 2 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. From Bassie f (his talk page) 08:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Distributor parameter: is it needed?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Distributor parameter: is it needed? ButlerBlog (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Old RfC

I'm looking for any RfC discussing episode lists. I've been having trouble tracking any down and was wondering if anyone here is aware of any. I'm planning on opening another RfC discussing whether podcast episode lists need to pass NLIST or are acceptable to split from the podcast regardless. I would like to find a RfC for television episode lists so that I have something to model the RfC on. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, if the only thing the episode list gives you is the title and date, those lists are really not helpful. Not that List of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno episodes (2000–2009) is any better. Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, talk shows and game shows and the like, and pretty much anything else that is "unscripted" and without "episode storylines" (and this would include most podcasts), should not have "episode lists" on Wikipedia. Only scripted series, or "reality TV" shows with "continuing storylines", should have episodes lists and summaries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Warner Bros. Discovery New Zealand#Requested move 20 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Warner Bros. Discovery New Zealand#Requested move 20 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. From Bassie f (his talk page) 21:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Deleting some Chronology parameters

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Deleting some Chronology parameters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Episode notability suggestions

While WP:NTV is still being worked out, and given the ever-increasing discussions as more and more episode articles are created, I have some suggestions for criteria. I don't intend this as an RfC, but to see if the ideas have general support before an RfC on adding them to the guidelines.

1. Principle: an episode should demonstrate notability on its own; that is, the article would pass GNG regardless of the series. Therefore, it should include:
   1. Reliable sources* documenting its production, with more than a passing mention, and
   2. Reliable sources* documenting its reception, with more than a passing mention
   3. If an episode meets GNG, but not all of the NTV criteria, it may still get an article if...
2. An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable, in line with MOS:TVPRODUCTION and MOS:TVRECEPTION, unless it was unreleased (see 4 & 5)
3. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series, the show will normally have an article for any of its episodes to be considered notable. The episode is not considered notable enough for its own article if:
   1. It will only duplicate information that is sufficiently DUE at the series article or a relevant season article or a relevant episode list; or
   2. There is no season article or episode list covering the relevant span due to lack of coverage. Extremely notable individual episodes may be exceptions
4. If the episode does not belong to a commissioned series, i.e. an orphaned pilot or unproduced pilot, it should demonstrate sufficient production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
5. If the episode belongs to a commissioned series but was unaired, or not completed, it should demonstrate sufficient notability for unproduced works as if it did not belong to any series. This includes production coverage and lasting impact in reliable sources*
6. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria (see discussion)
7. Plot, release and cast list are considered trivial and non-notable coverage, as they are all evident and able to be confirmed through an episode's mere existence; however, they should be included in episode articles that are otherwise notable
8. Being nominated for or winning awards, even Emmys and BAFTAs, does not automatically denote episode notability; these can be covered at a season or series article (see discussion)
9. Some variation upon saying episodes released as part of a streaming block, with the exception of anthology series, (probably) may not get enough coverage to be independently notable

*Reliable sources refers to those relevant to the TV WikiProject, and independent to the production of the episode. These do not have to be in English.

Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this. On the specific topic of TV pilots, I really think we need to clamp down on this area especially, and we should be clear that "significant coverage" actually means more than short-term coverage (and/or sourcing demonstrating a "lasting impact"), so we avoid outcomes like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Times (TV pilot) where the "keep" outcome at AfD was truly a travesty. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed "popular impact" to "lasting impact" above Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you want to avoid words like "must". A guideline will instead generally say something like, "Notable television series and series episodes will generally receive significant coverage on both their production aspects and their critical response and/or cultural impact." I'm not saying the wording will be exactly this – but it shouldn't use words like "must", as there will always be exceptions. That's actually why I have a problem with the current first sentence of WP:TVSHOW – saying "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." just isn't clear enough that there are definitely exceptions to this, and "airing nationally" on its own isn't enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm hoping this will be prose-ified before becoming a guideline, as well. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The wording An episode article should normally have both production and reception sections to be considered notable" reads as more to do with article quality than notability. Notability on those points are things like an overly long production period e.g. took three times as long to shoot as a normal episode, had 12 directors, was scheduled for series 3 but didn't surface until series 5 etc, and reception is, it was universally praised/trashed. I don't think notability should be dictated by having a section, that would invite padding. - X201 (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@X201: There's a discussion below about what qualifies as suitable production/reception sections. Perhaps if the wording explains that it should have such sections that meet the TV MOS? Kingsif (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Thanks for all these suggestions. I just want to point out (at least in my view), the text currently being drafted at WP:NTV in regards to television pilots/unaired pilots, and television episodes is more or less "accepted" for what it is, and probably should be used as a basis to expand upon with anything else discussed here. I'm not saying what's at Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television pilots, future series or seasons, and unreleased series and Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes are the be all end all, just that there's a good foundation there and that text shouldn't be disregarded when considering any further changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh also, anything that is seemingly agreed upon can just be added right to the proposed NTV because it's just in a drafting stage. Based on how it was described to me, once this project/concerned editors agree on something as drafted, then we should have RfCs to get wider input. We aren't there yet, so as I said, we can just make changes right to the proposal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there currently anything agreed upon that could be implemented on the working draft Wikipedia:Notability (television)? — YoungForever^(talk) 00:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Season crit

There needs to be some version of criteria 5 from WP:BOOKCRIT: The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. Some TV shows or franchises are so notable that their entire history is studied. On the other hand, we don't want this to be a license to having every episode of a long-running, studied-in-academic-circles soap opera have individual articles "because WP:TVEPISODECRIT." To prevent "runaway article creation" I would recommend that the criteria be limited to episodes that are part of a season or series in which over half of the members already qualify for and already have articles (not redirects). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion, so the TV season is so historically significant that any of its episode can be considered notable? How about a variation on (added as #6):

1. An episode that may not meet all of the individual criteria can be deemed notable if it is part of a season of television that is extensively studied and of significant historic notability; that is, the season is the subject of lasting academic criticism and extensive lasting popular culture coverage of sufficient depth. In these cases, a majority of the season's episodes must also meet independent notability criteria.

I really agree on that last point; I know a season that would theoretically qualify but I don't think any of its episodes are really notable enough and wouldn't like to see the exception be used to have them created and kept. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, let's break down the process: in terms of articles, it's TV series -> LoE -> season -> episode(s) in order (sometimes the LoE step is skipped). Why do I bring this up? Because some TV series will not qualify for separate "season" articles, and just because a "season" article exists/is justified doesn't mean that individual TV episode articles are justified. So I would be leery of the idea that having a well-studied TV "season" necessarily implies that individual episodes will qualify for standalone articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If most of the episodes are notable, and the season is notable, does that make all of the other episodes to some level notable as default? When David mentioned it, I looked from the reader's perspective; that if a season seems so significant, and I find an article for most of its episodes, I want to read about the rest of them and would find it strange that some seemed randomly excluded. On the other hand, if a series is that well-studied and most of its episodes notable, then episodes that can't procure enough independent notability may very well be not significant at all or it would have at least some coverage. Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Let the coverage dictate it. First, this hypothetical episode will still be covered – in the season article. But I would have a problem with creating an article for an episode like The Burning (Seinfeld) just because "all the other episodes in that season have articles", because "The Burning" doesn't have the requisite production or even "review" level coverage... So, I think I have a problem with the idea that a "well-studied" season in which most of the episodes have standalone articles should "require" the other episodes to get articles even when the coverage doesn't justify it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would avoid this. Take, for example, most of the streaming services original programming which release new seasons of a show in one block. Because of that model, the season is clearly notable (eg Stranger Things (season 3)) but none of the individual episodes would be. --Masem (t) 21:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh no, you've reminded me of streaming blocks. Are episodes released all at once non-notable by default? I feel like that's the case and it would take some good sources to show otherwise. Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of the time, yes, since all the media before and after release focus on the season. You may get individual episode reviews but rarely a single episode in a bloc gets the development or production-type details that a normal broadcast episode may get (comparing how Stranger Things was reported on to how Watchmen or Westworld had been handled). So I'd definitely make sure to account for this. I agree that in a normal case, if 50%+ of a season's episodes are notable, the rest likely are, so given that rarely a streaming bloc episode is notable, this may not be an issue. --Masem (t) 22:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need to be noted, then. Unless we want a whole section on streaming at the eventual guideline. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In regards to this and #9 above, I think the tone of the statement should be lessened, or that number removed all together. We just need to state something like "episodes released in a block may not get the individual coverage to warrant individual articles" because it is still possible for a singular episode in a block (perhaps the first or last) to get significant coverage. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Mirror (series 3 to 5) is an exception but anthologies are more likely to receive individual episode attention. — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify My original suggestion was NOT to say "you can create a [non-list-article] page about a season" (or "series" for things like the new Doctor Who) but rather "if the series/season qualified under general notability guidelines, whether it had an article or not, and where half or more of the episodes in the series/season already qualify for an article outside of this special "it's part of a notable season/season" exemption, then in order to "complete the set" all other episodes in that season will be "given a pass" on notability, much as otherwise-non-notable works by famous authors do not have to show they are notable in and of themselves." In other words, as with the books by famous authors, and for that matter songs and albums by famous musicians, sometimes "notability IS inherited" WP:NOTINHERITED notwithstanding. As for shows without distinct "seasons" things like "identifiable story arcs or other definable large contiguous sequences of episodes" or "the whole run of the show" can be used to substitute for "season/series." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we understood what you meant, but are not sure if we actually want to "complete the set" or not: from a reader perspective, we surely would, but episodes of a single season (or series) are much more closely connected than books by the same author (some of which may be much older and/or more obscure), so we can reasonably expect that if most of the episodes meet GNG, all of them will, and those that don't are exceptionally not-notable. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any Deletionists Delight language, as per the ridiculous deletion of the one Seinfeld episode. WP:IAR should certainly apply here, please put the IAR 'Completeness' language back in the criteria, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Awards

For those already part of the discussion @IJBall, Masem, and Davidwr:, I've now added #8, about awards. I think this seems an obvious point of notability, but that it might be controversial. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this. But also on the flip side, depending on the type of award nomination, by getting such it in theory could be believed that there's enough coverage out there to make an article. But an article shouldn't be created solely because of such nominations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing ideas

So these ideas are just supposed to be standalone distinct ideas we could either get consensus for or against? Mentioned in discussion above (and with precedents at WP:NFO and WP:NBOOK) would be variations upon "X reviews", such as: (a) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources; (b) at least two reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources excluding those known for an extremely large number of reviews (IGN, A.V. Club have been given as examples); (c) at least five reviews in reliable (inter-)national sources. I would also add a possibility "winning an award can count towards this threshold" or just an option "winning a major award" that automatically qualifies as notability (in direct contradiction to criterion #8). Also maybe I'm missing it but I'd like a way for supporters of the following claim to have the potential for it to become consensus: "if a season/program has received extremely detailed coverage and the majority of episodes in the season/program are notable then the episode is considered notable" (targeted at people who think it would be an undesirable outcome to have 21 articles and 3 redirects for a season of a show). — Bilorv (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

To the first point, I didn't want to detail what a decent reception section would be. I think we all agree a reception section is needed, but what constitutes a notable reception section is debated. Perhaps a fixed number of reception articles (not necessarily reviews), with an award (that has a Wikipedia article for it/awarding body) counting towards that number, is the way to go. Should that be hashed out before RfC?

And please continue discussing the merits of the extremely detailed coverage part, more than three views on the matter would be great.

Kingsif (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I can tell you what doesn't constitute a "proper" 'Response' section – one that only cites Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic! I would actually like to see it written in the guideline that a "proper" 'Response' section must (and here I would use "must"!) have more than just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, and must include proper individual reviews, and that sections consisting of just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can be removed from the article. I come across this fairly often. Right now, MOS:TV doesn't specifically speak to this, but it should. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, what constitutes a "proper" production section should probably also be worked out, but these are more likely needed at MOS:TV, which you mention. And then linked from the notability criteria. I.e. NTV should say we expect "proper" production and reception sections, and see the MOS for what that means. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a much higher bar for notability than is currently being used in AfD discussions. How are you planning on establishing a wider consensus for that meaningful change, outside of a few people talking and drafting on this page? — Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That's good. AfDs are being closed as keep with reasons like "they said they're looking for sources and it exists so that's good enough for now", but it isn't good enough; there's a lower bar for notability of films than books and even then that's higher than the current acceptable level of TV episodes. There has to be a good reason to not just give the episode routine coverage at a season/show article to justify an individual article - because the more individual articles exist the more it prompts people to create them for every episode ever - but editors who have caught the creation bug want to give that routine coverage in a stubby episode article. The TV project can decide on TV notability criteria, then start an RfC for guideline inclusion (as I mentioned in the first sentence). But even if this discussion is just something referenced in AfDs as the intention of editors who are focusing on TV articles, it's something of a win. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said in the previous discussion: RT/Metacritic are only worth citing when they list more than 20 reviews, otherwise there's too much random fluctuation, and if it has 20 reviews then enough of the 20 should be high-quality enough to justify a standalone article. If you see a "Reception" that just cites RT and/or Metacritic then replace them with the set of reviews cited that are reliable/good for Wikipedia's purpose. If there are then not enough for notability then it's time for WP:BEFORE and if that fails then AfD or redirect (and for consistency it's best to look at all episode articles for that show/season as well if you can). — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My problem with using RT/Metacritic as a metric is that lots of non-American shows are not included, or get much less coverage. I think saying that only RT/Metacritic is not a suitable reception section is fine, but we shouldn't say an episode needs X amount on either, because some will never reach that no matter their notability. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood. I don't support any requirement that RT or Metacritic pages even exist for an episode to be notable. My comment above is intended to imply that RT/Metacritic are unrelated to notability—it is only the reviews that they list that could be useful in assessing this. — Bilorv (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Good idea. Should that be at the MOS? (MOS:TVRECEPTION) Kingsif (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be explicit that if WP:GNG or any other applicable notability criteria is met, it is considered notable even if it fails this criteria due to things like missing production information or missing audience information from its initial airing. This can easily happen if old, previously obscure/forgotten episodes are "re-discovered" and heavily commented on by journalists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Started a line at 1.3 to this effect Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Be explicit that Wikipedia is not obligated to have an article about a TV episode that meets this or any other notability criteria IF there is an existing consensus against it or if the standard practice for that particular TV show is to not have stand-alone episode articles (see also: WP:SPLIT).

Is that really a notability issue? Or just a "don't make an article that we've agreed not to make" issue? Kingsif (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's the latter but I've seen enough arguments over things like this over the years that it's worth putting in any special notability guideline, even if it's just in an appendix-type section that doesn't carry the "weight" of a policy or guideline near the bottom. The controlling guidelines/policies are probably those that address WP:CONSENSUS and other behavioral guidelines, along with a dash of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD for cases where there is no firm consensus against per-episode articles but some indication of a standard practice of not having them for this series/season despite notable examples being available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Implementation

@Kingsif: Do you want to synthesis what was discussed here an add it into the working draft of the guideline? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I could try. Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Time to archive?

This discussion, along with #Articles for every episode, has been dormant for almost two years, and any future discussion can occur at Wikipedia talk:Notability (television). Is it time to unpin these sections and allow them to be archived? RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please do. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. This should be going away soon. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Help with RfD

Could I get some input at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 20#Jade Armor (TV series)? It's a bit unclear when this television show premiered, maybe one of you people who are more familiar with these things can figure it out with more confidence than I have. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 09:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Further opinions on article merger would be appreciated

Currently, there is a proposed merger of Libraries and librarians in fiction and Librarians in popular culture to a new page entitled Libraries and librarians in culture. But, it has been inactive since July 2022, so it would be great to get some more eyes on it, so there can a clearer consensus before moving forward. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Recently proposed mergers

In light of some recent drive-by editing by a certain user, I decided to propose some mergers of various pages about LGBTQ animated characters:

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 1990s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 1990s, discussion here

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 2000s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 2000s, discussion here

• Animated series with LGBT characters: 2010s into History of LGBT characters in animation: 2010s, discussion here

Also, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to participate in this discussion about the proposed merger of Animated series with LGBT characters: 2020s and List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present, which has been stale since Dec. 2022. Historyday01 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

More input required

I think some input at this episode's discussion may be required GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no active content dispute. GoodDay is merely blowing on the embers. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

We'll let others decide that, for themselves. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Odd you should say that, since you've decided for yourself there exists a dispute for others to get involved in and thus reignite it. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 01:43, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I haven't described anything 'here' as a content dispute. Merely requesting more input into a discussion, at an episode page. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no use playing the literal game. The implication in a request for others' input is clear.

To save anyone else reading this their time, I, as the only other editor involved in an argument that is going on at that talkpage can tell you it's no longer about the current content of the article; I put in a compromise edit days ago and the other editor hasn't mentioned it since. The argument has been about what constitutes edit warring (despite that editor having already taken up many other editors' time arguing with them over at the EW talk page) and semantics. I am gradually easing myself out of it (if GoodDay doesn't become an obstacle to my exit, that is). --₪ MIESIANIACAL 02:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

It's up to you members of the WikiProject. Give your input 'there', if you wish. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Romani ite domum

The article Romani ite domum has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Handily fails WP:PLOT & WP:N (nominated at the request of User:Michael Bednarek)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Romani ite domum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Romani ite domum 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/Romani ite domum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

— Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Should AI software be credited as a writer?

The March 8, 2023 episode of South Park, "Deep Learning", which depicts the characters using the AI-based app ChatGPT to write their romantic texts and school essays, credits ChatGPt in the closing credits. Some editors want this listed in the episode's Infobox, while others opposite it. Can editors please weigh in with their opinion at the RfC here?

The discussion that preceeded it, in which editors presented their arguments for and against the decision, is directly above it. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that I would not list that, say, under 'writers' in an infobox or episodes table. But I would certainly mention that in prose (presumably under 'Production'), esp. if secondary sources notice it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

'Producer' parameter on 'Infobox award' template

Further discussion/opinions would be greatly appreciated regarding Template talk:Infobox award#Producer clarification. I have asked the same thing in the past on the talk page for that infobox template, but have similarly gotten no responses.

TL;DR, there is a parameter titled 'producer' which instructs to simply list the, "show's producer". It doesn't specify if this means those credited as 'producer' of it it instead means (or includes) executive producers or the production company. As broad as it currently is, it should be updated accordingly, whether that means updating the template instructions or adding new parameters for EPs/production companies. I don't know, but as I said, further discussions/opinions on this matter would be great. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Usually there is one or two to three people who are actually credited as "Producer" right? Those are who I imagine should be noted, much like the person(s) who is the director. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that "producer"/"E.P." titles on movies means something different than it does with TV shows. On a movie, the "producer" definitely gets the award. But, on a TV show, it's probably the "showrunner", who often has the title of "Executive Producer". I don't know that there's an easy way to resolve this issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This template, and parameter in particular, is for awards ceremonies, yes? So if we were to use the Oscars, and build this infobox specifically for the upcoming 95th ones, the producers are Glenn Weiss and Ricky Kirshner and they both should be in the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: The problem with that example, is that the parameter for this template is simply listed as 'producer'. The title of this source says they are set as the producers for it, then within the article itself, says they will, "...serve as executive producers..."

Looking at the 2023 Kids' Choice Awards which have already occurred, Jesse Ignjatovic, Evan Prager, and Barb Bialkowski (all from Den of Thieves) are credited as 'executive producer', along with Luke Wahl, Paul J. Medford, and Ashley Kaplan credited as executive producers for Nickelodeon. Then additionally, there are Sara Miller and Lauren Mandel who are the two simply credited as 'producer'.

So in that instance, who should be listed as producer? I would imagine the two actually credited for that role, but then that conflicts with Weiss + Kirshner being listed in the Oscars infoboxes, as they are executive producers. This is exactly why I would suggest change(s?) to the template to avoid this kind of confusion going on in the future. Again, whether that be changing the 'producer' parameter to 'executive producer' or adding it in for both to be listed, I don't know. Magitroopa (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

With the Oscars having aired tonight, here's an update on those credits: Ricky Kirshner, Glenn Weiss, and Molly McNearney are all credited as executive producers, while Sarah Levine Hall, Raj Kapoor, Erin Irwin, and Jennifer Sharron are the ones with the simple 'producers' crediting. With the parameter only giving out 'Produced by', something definitely needs to be updated with the infobox- I'm guessing it would be change it to list executive producers instead. Magitroopa (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Kirshner and Weiss (and I guess McNearney) definitely need to be the ones credited in this instance. So if that means adjusting the current parameter, or also adding an Executive producer one, that's the solution. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

So Help Me Todd

I need some pairs of eyes on So Help Me Todd. Various IP addresses (before it was semi-page protected until March 14) and a name editor have been disruptive editing by repeatedly changing "website=The Futon Critic" to "work=TheFutonCritic.com" every few days. Based on WP:TV and MOS:TV past discussions, the website name is The Futon Critic, not the domain name as work. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Added to my watch list. You are correct: if there's a clear website name/title, that should be used for the |work= parameter. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the disruptive editing of IP address(es) resume right after the semi-page protection came off on March 14. They are also being WP:SNEAKY. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal needs input

Formal request has been received to merge: NHL on Versus into NHL on NBC; dated: February 2023. Proposer's Rationale: Both networks were owned by the same company and there were many similarities in their coverage. They might as well be one and the same. ~100.7.44.80. Discussion input welcome.GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Looney Tunes Platinum Collection

The article Looney Tunes Platinum Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article reads like an advertisement or press release, and has only one source for its 10.03-year history.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Requested move at Talk:Frak (expletive)#Requested move 12 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Frak (expletive)#Requested move 12 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:SBS TV (South Korean TV channel)#Requested move 17 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SBS TV (South Korean TV channel)#Requested move 17 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. From Bassie f (his talk page) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Tom Westman still under relisted AFD discussion

More input is welcome, especially after two relistings. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Westman (2nd nomination). George Ho (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Fox Life (Greek TV channel)#Requested move 23 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fox Life (Greek TV channel)#Requested move 23 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Episode articles with only plot and reception

I can't seem to remember, did this WP come to a consensus concerning episode articles where the only content was a plot and reception? I feel as if the agreement was that articles such as these were not notable, but I wanted to make sure first; my concern for this relates to the episode articles for South Park, which only uses these two sections for notability. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there was a general consensus that only plot and reception are not enough to warrant an episode article as it fails WP:GNG. I remembered the discussion on WikiProject Television. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I do recall a convo like that but that was years ago. I agree it is valid to consider such articles not sufficient for notability, if we're talking the typical 3-4 sources + Neilsen numbers. If it a controversial episode of South Park such that the reception covers the controversy in depth, typically now looking at 5-6 sources+, that's different.

Be aware that I expect arguments that will complain the three-to-four sources makes it pass the GNG, but a Wikiproject is in its rights to narrow that down to improve coverage. Masem (t) 23:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that there is pretty strong consensus within WP:TV that this is true – that TV articles should also have a robust 'Production' section in order to qualify for standalone articles – but as Masem points out above, the harder line "inclusionists" outside WP:TV feel that such a standard is "too strict" because they interpret WP:GNG in pretty much the loosest way possible – that something like two or so "independent sources" (e.g. reviews, even from something incredibly marginal like Common Sense Media) qualify pretty much anything for an article.

So, basically, you can try taking an article like this to WP:AfD, but there is very likely to be pushback from the inclusionists who will claim this is "OK" to qualify for an article. Of course, you can always try converting to a redirect first, but it's pretty likely to be reverted for something like South Park. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There will definitely be pushback if too many articles like this get nominated for AfD; I recall TenPoundHammer's AfDs and redirects for TV episode articles were a major talking point in the buildup to WP:ARBXFD. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Literally every time I tried to tackle such an episode, it would get undone (sometimes not even a full second) later by someone arguing "all TV episodes are notable". Usually they'd claim "there are sources, trust me on this" and never get around to it, or claim that because one boilerplate review existed, that was enough to make it notable on its own. My understanding is that episodes aren't supposed to be notable unless there's detailed info about the episode beyond just a single review from a review-mill that churns out reviews for everything that ever existed. But every time I tried to refute that, the people undoing my redirects just went "la la la, I can't hear you". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically if sources exist then the article should be allowed to remain, whether or not they're incorporated into the article. However, I rather agree with you...editors shouldn't just claim that sources exist while proving unwilling or unable to provide such sources, or otherwise lifting a finger to address such concerns. I've had a similar experience when I've tried to deal with barebones Star Trek episode articles, with editors apparently forgetting that notability is not inherited. DonIago (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Literally every single time I've pressed anyone for sources ever, they just tell me "oh trust me, they're out there". I can't find a way to break people out of this trend of passing the buck. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NEXIST mostly operates as a canard. I mean, yeah – I've seen one or two instances where someone invoked that, and then actually followed through to produce some sources. But most of the time I see it invoked, it is in a "The check is in the mail!!1!" context or gambit. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I noticed the pushback comes more from either TV series with a big fan following (like South Park, but Simpsons isn't much better) or shows that are the flavor of the week. Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NTVEP exists now, which became the consensus for the project after a long discussion (the first of which I think is still pinned at the top of the talk here). That can definitely be used in support for any AfDs if that's the route it goes, but as with the editors who look to the loosest terms of GNG, they could also state "Well WP:NTV is just an essay, not a guideline or WP:SNG". It's the same principle as WP:NSONG however: not every song on an album is notable, and likely not every television episode is notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a note, while the project consensus may be in support of NTVEP, the proposed guidelines were found to have no consensus when put up for RFC. So there may be more pushback if someone tries to use that as support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep – the "only thing that matters is WP:GNG!!1!" hardliners who tediously invoke WP:CREEP at any suggested developments/improvements (good or bad), succeeded in keeping that at "Essay" level, so they can say "It's just an "essay"!!1!" in AfD discussions (despite the fact that some of our most important operating principles, like WP:BRD and WP:Readers first, are only at the "essay" level, so it's not like "essays" can't have important standing!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Issue isn't just notability, also the splitting from the season, list of episodes, series, etc articles, where the episode articles mostly duplicate those with little added content. Majority of episode articles don't seem ideal for inclusion in WP, their information could be better consolidated in their parent articles. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because something passes WP:GNG does not mean it should exist as a standalone article, something can meet the bare minimum requirements and still be better suited merged into a more appropriate location such as a series or season article. That is why experienced editors put together the suggestions in WP:NTVEP to help guide these discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but inclusionists like to pretend that WP:NOPAGE doesn't say that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is true, inclusionists ignore WP:NTVEP. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tagged the three episodes of the most recent season of South Park season 26 with {{notability}}; we'll see how long they last. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I've found {{notability}} tags dating back to 2010 that no one has bothered to address either way. And of course, literally half a second after I boldly redirect, someone snipes me. Every. Fucking. Time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What's an example of an episode with a notability tag that's that old? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Literally every single one I redirected for non-notability before a certain group of editors went on a rampage to undo my redirects... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I was quite right; as soon as I decided to add the tags, Nightscream removed them just as quickly twice. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I provided my rationale as to why. I will repeat those here, with an additional one that I neglected to include in my edit summary:

You claimed in your edit summary when you added that tag "This is not the only requirement for notability; read WP:NTVEP in further detail..."

First of all, WP:NTVEP isn't a policy. Nor is it a guideline. It's an essay.

Second, let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that it's not an essay, and that the criteria it gives are binding in the same way that those given by an actual policy or guideline are. WP:NTVEP,states "Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode." The articles in question includes mutliple reviews. No other required criterion is mentioned by that essay. Do you dispute this?

You complain that the articles have "only plot and reception". Let's put aside the production info and other material in the article, such as that found in the Infobox, External links, categories, etc. What other criteria, in your view, does Wikipedia require, and can you cite an actual policy or guideline that gives them?

Wikipedia and its articles are in a constant state of revision, and there is no deadline. I've seen articles with the barest bit of secondary sources, or even those lacking in them, and the consensus view, much to my dismay, was to keep them, on the basis of the rationale that so long as such sources exist, it was reasonable to keep the article, even if those sources were not cited in the article at the time, which I think is absurd. This demonstrates that the community regards the bar for notability as being a bit lower than I do. In light of this, these episode articles clearly exceed that bar, as they have secondary source citations, and a fair level of detail on their production. There is now way that the notion that they are somehow not notable reflects the practices of the editing community to date.

And btw, I didn't realize there was an ongoing discussion. There was no link in the tag/banner, nor any discussion on the articles' talk page, so I took this to mean that whoever added the tag did so and then ran off without discussion, as too many editors do when they add such tags. Had I know that there was an ongoing discussion on the matter, even despite the anemic rationale offered for the tags, I would not have reverted. In the future, it might been a good idea to alert editors who frequently work on South Park articles about that discussion. If the tag/banner does not support a link, a notice could be added to the talk page, and the most frequent editors to those articles can be pinged. I apologize if my reverts were viewed as an indication that I was ignoring discussion; I simply wasn't aware that one was ongoing. Nightscream (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You ignored the next sentence of WP:NTVEP which states "It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot." Do any of these articles have any 'Production' info contained in the articles? Are they likely to?! – If not, WP:NOPAGE can be invoked, and the argument that these topics are not best-served with standalone episodes, but instead at the "season"-level article, can legitimately be made. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I just want to back it up and ask why "this TV show has one three-sentence review on AV Club, therefore it's automatically notable" is the argument I'm seeing thrown around so much. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

IMO, AV Club reviews should never be used to "get you over the hump" anyway. They don't qualify as a "nationally known critic" (as per WP:NFILM). If an article's only reviews are, say, AV Club and Common Sense Media, that article flat-out does not pass WP:GNG under any reasonable standard. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, plus The Future of the Force and Bubbleblabber used in Japanese Toilet (South Park) where this discussion started seem worse as sources. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If an article's only reviews are, say, AV Club and Common Sense Media, that article flat-out does not pass WP:GNG under any reasonable standard. Tell that to all the editors who mass-undid all my redirects of articles whose sole sources were AV Club and Common Sense Media. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Relevent to this disscussion, I just noticed a lot of "new" episode articles, which were just @Donaldd23 (restoring previously redirected articles) while at the same time also removing {{Notability}} tags without actually addressing that issue. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Random question

Would an article like History of CBS be "high" importance for WP:TV? (I'd say "yes".) Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with "high". Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Importance scale, the subject is extremely notable, but is still notable only within one continent (i.e. America). -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Series or Season

What is it called, I have seen users switching between the two for Thomas and friends? I am tempted to change all of the seasons pages for Thomas and Friends to state season when they state series. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR – "season" is the U.S./North American (and Australian?...) version; "series" is the UK/Commonwealth version. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Randy and Sharon Marsh#Requested move 24 March 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Randy and Sharon Marsh#Requested move 24 March 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 10:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Can You Duet

I would like to know if anyone here can help me find better sources for Can You Duet. It doesn't seem to be notable per WP:NTV and every time I try to initiate a discussion, it fizzles out immediately. Please see Talk:Can You Duet for further analysis of sources. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Episodes of House

Hello! So I recently noticed that a lot of the articles for specific episodes of House (TV series) seem to have no sources, and the sources they do have are simply for reception. From what I can see, basically only the Pilot episode is notable (it even got to FA). Basically every episode after it consists solely of the plot of the episode with not much else other than the lead. I was thinking of doing a mass AFD for all of them except for the Pilot but figured I'd ask here first. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Many of these articles are already at WP:PROD. Mass nominations for notability alone are discouraged because that has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Many of these articles are already at WP:PROD what exactly do you mean by this? PROD is simply a process for uncontroversial deletion. Are you saying that they have already been PRODed? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:PRODSUM for titles ending in (House). There are currently 8 matches, including Recession Proof (House). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Looked at some of them and yeah they need deleting, Perils of Paranoia for example has a long plot tag since 2013, 2517 out of 400 words. One review from AV Club doesn't get near to establishing notability. Indagate (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Digital Spy, TIME and IGN added; all were immediately apparent. Couldn't find substantial academic/book sources or more on a deeper search. As a midseason finale this episode has potential in accruing more coverage than most, but balance that with the low ratings by the eighth season. I don't have the expertise to search for non-English-language reviews but I imagine they're likely to exist given the show's legacy.

For anyone else doing a search: I rejected California Literary Review (didn't like the look of the Reviewers or Submissions page), Polite Dissent (blog) and Television Without Pity (couldn't find an archive link, so didn't even begin to assess reliability).

If you'd like to nominate the article for deletion then do so, but do so on the basis of WP:BEFORE. Long plot violation is irrelevant to deletion. — Bilorv (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It was just a random example, didn't do searches like that yet, the plot was way over the length in the MoS, WP:NOTPLOT is the policy that concerns pages like that so is relevant when nothing else. Even with those it doesn't seem to meet notabiity guidelines, not particularly in-depth in their criticism and not many sources to warrent split from parent articles. Indagate (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Episode articles with only plot and reception. Gonnym (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I forgot that boldly redirecting articles is an option. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say, you shouldn't delete them, but rather redirect them, because the article names are still worthwhile. Just pointing to a table, not an actual article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Should redirect to the proper table entry using the epxx anchor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

As well as the above, don't forget to also use {{Television episode redirect handler}}. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of move discussion

A move discussion has been opened at Talk:Van der Valk#Requested move 4 April 2023, since the recent move to add the date of that series to the article title was reverted as undiscussed. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Bump. Softlavender (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Mama June: From Not to Hot

There is a source that says that a new season for the television show Mama June: From Not to Hot will premiere May 5th, 2023. Is this a reliable source? https://premieredate.news/tv-series/4056-mama-june-from-not-to-hot.html I wanted to check before adding in article? Cwater1 (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ratings graphs again

As I recall on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 35#Ratings graph proposal, the general consensus is to remove the ratings graphs if they do not show any significant viewership trends and/or cause accessibility issues. There is an editor who have been readding the ratings graphs to TV series regardless of the accessibility issues. Please see List of The Blacklist episodes#Ratings, List of NCIS episodes#Ratings, List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes#Ratings. As you can see, the x-axis on the ratings graphs is unreadable and we can't be scrolling horizontally on tables and graphs per MOS guidelines. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly regret creating that template, and we can't even get it deleted. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a thought. If it can't be deleted, what about modifying it so that it conforms to the accessibility rules? - X201 (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on Talk:List of Chicago Med episodes#Ratings table, Alex 21 said that he tried to fix the x-axis issue over the years, but yet to find a solution. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of limiting it to however many episodes looks OK and preventing it going higher. If that means some have to be split over two graphs, so be it, at least we'll have two readable and accessible graphs, rather than one huge one that is little use to anyone. - X201 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I had a quick dig with Petscan and found List of Top Gear (2002 TV series) episodes. All 239 episode numbers are clearly readable. - X201 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yikes, that by far is way worse. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is absolutely one of the worst case scenarios I've seen. See my view, and note the excessive whitespace, the crammed x-axis, and the extensive legend. I still have no idea how to space out the x-axis in {{Graph:Chart}} for bar graphs such as these. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being sarcastic last night when I said they were clearly visible. My view is the same as yours. I've also found List of Will & Grace episodes, which is just as bad. - X201 (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Update: The editor is back to adding the graphs again on other TV series articles, ignoring the general consensus. Still refuses to get the point. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about HungNguyen19181945 again, there's actually an ANI report against them as we speak, it'd be a great idea to bring this up there as well. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

They got blocked indefinitely as of few days ago. — YoungForever^(talk) 08:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Get a load of the graph here (scroll down the section). Not viewer ratings but critical response by individual episode, and it was added almost a year and a half ago and somehow remained. Insane. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Doctor Who (series 2)

Doctor Who (series 2) has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Bong Appétit

If any project members are interested, the newly created Bong Appétit could use an episodes table and the title card or promotional artwork for the infobox. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Junior Bake Off (series 8)

More contributions to improve the draft article about the eighth season of Junior Bake Off are welcome. George Ho (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Boomerang (Australian channel)#Requested move 8 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Boomerang (Australian channel)#Requested move 8 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. MaterialWorks (contribs) 10:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)