Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British TV shows/Archive 2

There is difficulty gaining consensus over at {{Infobox Television episode}}. MF wants to add colours to make episodes within a particular show consistent, whilst others comment upon issues of consistency thoughout the project and also of accessibility. I think we've hit a brick wall over how to progess, so more contributions would be appreciated. Cheers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spooks

Might it be an idea to exploit interest over the new series of Spooks by forming such a project, to create individual episode pages. I'm willing to head it up, if that doesn't sound too egotistical, although it might take a while as we have a 4 series backlog! :-) Please reply here or on the Talk:Spooks. [[User:Neddyseagoon | [[User talk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 13:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead?

Is this projects for all intents and purposes.. dead ? Deus Sum (Matthew Fenton) (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Quatermass Experiment FAR

The Quatermass Experiment has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for Star Cops

I opened a peer review for Star Cops recently. I want to submit it for GA following the review. Please come by and make some suggestions. Joe King 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Clue: No

Roll up, roll up! The plot section needs boiling down a bit. Volunteers?Neddyseagoon - talk 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Feet peer review

I've just started a peer review for Cold Feet. Any helpful comments and suggestions are welcomed. WindsorFan 13:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive removal of images HELP needed to track them all

Due to the recent merge of Infobox British Television (which apperently no one took the time to verify to be successfull), a lot of Images became unlinked. This resulted in them being semi-automatically deleted after 7 days because they were not in use and were not free images. I'm trying to get them undeleted at the moment, but there are a lot of undeletion logs to go trough, and I can use some help. We will need to go trough all the pages here and fix their infobox to link the images. Then if the image is no longer present, they need to be listed. I have done the first 100 at the moment, but there are MANY more pages that need to be checked to see if the image was deleted. I can use some help. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think i have them all now, but if you notice a program that had it's image apparently removed, report it here please. The once in the above list are up for undeletion however. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hi, I've just joined the project. Two things, I've added the Project box to Get Some In. Another thing is that I'd like to see an entry on The Vital Spark TV series, but for one thing there were three series, two in the 60's and a later one with Gregor Fisher. Also, information seems sparse as there were only a few surviving episodes of the old series. Anyone here care to give their opinion on the Get Some In entry? Douglasnicol 16:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making Waves peer review

Remember Making Waves? It's now up for peer review and any comments are welcomed. WindsorFan 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children's TV in UK WikiProject

This is a proposed WikiProject. If the project is a success we'd like to become sister projects. It is dedicated solely to children's tv programs that were first screened or produced in the UK. The articles that need to be improved are mainly ones that were first screened in the 1980s and 1990s, but all need tweaking somewhat. If you are interested in signing up go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and it's the project with the longest name. Just add # then your user name on the list. Thanks, Soopa hoops77 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Smith entry, opening line NPOV?

moved from main page. --Matthew

Someone has edited the Citizen Smith entry. The first paragraph read...

"Citizen Smith was a British TV sitcom from the 1970s. The show was written by John Sullivan who went on later to write the hugely successful Only Fools and Horses."

To

"Citizen Smith was a British TV sitcom from the 1970s, whose tame revolutionary hero demonstrated the declining prestige of left-wing activism in the British media on the eve of the Margaret Thatcher era. The show was written by John Sullivan who went on later to write the hugely successful Only Fools and Horses."

Is it me, or does this edit seem rather NPOV?

I agree, I've formalised the lead-in and corrected the tense within the article. Matthew 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK) Peer Review

This was started a week-and-a-half ago, and in the meantime, the article has been awarded GA Status. The other editors and I are hoping ultimately to have this promoted to FA, but anticipate that some work will be needed to achieve this. The review is taking place at Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_Apprentice_(UK), and any and all comments on this would be much appreciated. Cheers --Fritzpoll 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill

It looks like user:itv1_the_bill has been making lots of edits to The Bill and related characters, quite a lot of which seem to be reckless editing, or possibly vandalism... May need going through Paulbrock 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC catalogue numbers being used as production numbers

I thought I'd point out here that some pages (such as List of Gimme Gimme Gimme episodes) are using BBC catalogue numbers in a production number column. These are not the same production numbers as, say, an American series would have -- it is a number assigned by the BBC rather than the production company. For example, the BBC catalogue lists the Simpsons episode "Bart the General" that, when produced in America, was given the production number "7G05". When the rights were bought by the BBC, they gave it the catalogue number "LPCU845D"[1]. You could get around this by changing the column names to "BBC catalogue number", though the purpose of having it in the article would need to be discussed. WindsorFan 15:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The example you've given is a proper BBC programe number, and defines a specific editorial entity (e.g. a TV programme). It is not a catalogue number. The reason it looks complicated is because the BBC make a lot of TV. To dissect your example:

LPC production unit
U production year (by custom)
845 production number
D checksum character

This is known as the "core" number. Prefixes to the core define financial entities (cost centres), suffixes define programme entities (programmes, parts of programmes, and versions of programmes). Bought-in programmes require both of these entities, to track costs and play-out. The BBC assigns a core number to enable the management of these tasks within BBC systems. All BBC-produced programmes are all known uniquely and universally by these numbers. Other numbering systems are all arbitrary and local to the individual production office. The number closest to a catalogue number would either be a spool number or a shelf number which identify a tape's physical medium and its physical home respectively, but neither of these would refer directly to the programme. You could get them from the full version of INFAX I expect, but the general public don't get to see those. Claire c4 19:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality TV star noteability guidelines

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Countdown

I have nominated Countdown (game show) 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.

Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

This is an article I've been working on and off for about six months. I'd really appreciate a rating. Any chance of a look? - bingo99 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has now received 'Good Article' status. I'd be keen for it to be peer-reviewed again, in a hope of it reaching A-Class status, then hopefully Featured Article status. Thanks in advance for any advice or help. - bingo99 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been upgraded to A-Class by WIkiproject Television, could it also be upgraded here to keep it in line, thanks bingo99, 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackadder epidodes

See Talk:List_of_Blackadder_episodes#Episode_notability. Tim! 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]