Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Wanting to start a task force

I am interested in starting a Task Force for Terminator, but I have never done such before, and am concerned over how one does so. An additional issue is that the Terminator franchise also covers a multiple of mediums, like film television and comic books. Could someone help explain how to start one? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(slaps forehead) I totally forgot about that (multiple medium) when I suggested you create it as a task force of WP:TV =) –xeno ^talk 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think that since the bulk (and start) of it is the movies, that such a task force would be better under the Films project. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

yes, I'd have to agree. but it doesn't look like films has many "franchise" subtask forces. –xeno ^talk 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

True, usually franchise subtask forces are frowned on for being too specific. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Star Trek or Highlander start out as a task force, or was it created as a wikiproject in the primordial soup of Early Wikipedia? As for the argument that it should be under Films, is the criteria used for such based on which medium was used first, or which medium contains the larger set of articles? For ST, the latter is clearly true, while for Highlander, the opposite is true. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Star Trek one definitely started out in the dark ages. Not sure about Highlander. I would just use a bit of common sense and logic in deciding where to base it. Speaking on a personal level, Terminator for me is movies. It could have a million magazines, but the heart of the franchise is in the movies. I view The Sarah Connor Chronicles a spin off, and I suppose I see the magazines as such, too. Star Trek will always be a television genre, which happens to have some movie, book and magazine spin offs. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, Matthew, but common sense is splendid if you know what you are making. I've never made a task force or a wikiproject before. I am unsure how to proceed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces should help you out with that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Showrunner

Distinct from the generic executive producer and with a rising public profile, showrunner is arguably the most senior position in the production of tv series. While not commonly identified in credits, where the showrunner's usually listed as an executive producer, I'd like to request it be included in the infobox's Production section.

From the showrunner page:
Traditionally, the executive producer of a television program was the "chief executive," responsible for the show's production. Over time, the title of executive producer has been applied to a wider range of duties, from those responsible for arranging financing to an honorific without actual management duties. The term "show runner" was created to identify the producer who actually held ultimate management authority for the program. The blog (and book) Crafty Screenwriting defines showrunner as "the person responsible for all creative aspects of the show, and responsible only to the network (and production company, if it's not his production company). The boss. Usually a writer." rrzzrr (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

We've spent a lot of time trying to remove extraneous jobs from the box. I don't think we need to add "Showrunner" to the box. As you pointed out, the "showrunner" is often not identified as such, but as an EP. I think if they need to be pointed out in some capacity then in prose will be the best place. I think the infobox should be restricted to people most visibly associated with the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the showrunner page. These are the most visible people: J. J. Abrams, David Chase, Tina Fey, Ricky Gervais, Matt Groening, David E. Kelley, Tim Kring, David Milch, Ronald D. Moore, Gene Roddenberry, Jerry Seinfeld and Joss Whedon. To name a few. rrzzrr (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

JJ is listed as the EP. David Kelley is listed as either EP or creator. Same with Tim Kring. All those names typically hold either the title of "Executive Producer", "Developer" or "Creator". As such, they already have a position in the infobox. I've read where people are referred to as the "showrunner", but I cannot remember a time when I saw "Showrunner: XXXX" in the credits of a show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's true, showrunners are not listed as such in credits. Their identities are well established, however, in trade publications and on official show sites, because a series isn't directed or written, it's run. rrzzrr (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be left in the prose as needed based on reliable sources. A lot of GAs, like the Simpsons ones, have something in the Production section about the showrunner doing this or that. It wouldn't be horrible to have it in the infobox, but I feel it would then require a reference, since the info isn't in the credits. The problem is that if a field is added to the infobox, people are going to feel compelled to add that info, and they'll add it without a ref most of the time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Episodes are "directed" and "written", that's why each episode says "directed by" and "written by". A "showrunner" is just someone who oversees the production, but isn't the director of any specific episode. They're basically a producer, hence why they often get that title. Tim Kring is not in Heroes production as much as he used to be. The same with most of those people you listed. I don't see a reason to have it in the infobox when in most cases you won't find a source calling someone the "showrunner", and even if you do you'll find another one listing them as something else (EP, Crea., Devel., etc.). Since they'll most likely be in one of those positions in the infobox there really isn't a reason to create another position just for them, when the one they are listed for is probably the one they are being credited as a "showrunner" for as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are writers and directors in tv series. They do not, however, leave a mark on a series as they do in feature films. The person shaping the show is its runner, that's what I meant to say. Though they're not listed, I'd like to see credit where credit's due. rrzzrr (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an original source. You're asking to create a section for a role that's basically a job with no official title. "Showrunner" is not something you see officially credited. You might as well as for "Key Grip", because that's an important role as well. You're also asking for a role that's typically identified by other names, which makes its inclusion redundant. We've already had a "remove redundancies" session with the box. P.S. The Emmy's do give out "Best Director" awards and "Best Writer" awards, and there are a lot of TV directors that are well known. You don't see recognition for "Best Showrunner", or even general mentioning of a "Showrunner" in most cases. You could probably find instances of it here and there, I know because I've seen it before, but it's not the typical title associated with those people. They typically have some other title given to them, that encompasses the role you are describing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing form, I'm arguing content. You're talking title, I'm talking job. We should get married. :) Anyway, thanks for the discussion. rrzzrr (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop Idol

Hi, I was wondering if anyone was willing to help me with the Pop Idol (UK) individual series articles (Series 1 and Series 2). I am currently hoping to get them to GA standard. Let me know here or on my talkpage immediately. Thanks. 03md 14:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about House, M.D.

I have a question about the tv series House, M.D. In List of House episodes it is written that in the third season 12th and 13th episodes are:
12. One Day, One Room
13. Needle in a Haystack

However the official web site of FOX says that the two episodes are reversed. Why is there this ambiguity?

--RanZag (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the episodes were not aired in the same order they were produced. Even if this happens, however, this weird numbering thing isn't supposed to occur, so I'm unsure what is up with that. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally people will go with first air order, however in this case although production order is reversed the rerun order is the same so suggest it right--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be presented in the original airdate order. If they were filmed out of order, than a special note (with a reliable source) pointing this out should be made.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image dispute at House FAC

There is currently a dispute over the use of a non-free image of the cast of House, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive1. One side is arguing that the image does not significantly increase understanding, while another side is arguing that it does. Additional input from more editors is requested. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cally (Blake's 7)

Cally (Blake's 7) has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

MASH plot summaries

Every season-one episode of MASH is up for deletion. One is here at Cowboy (M*A*S*H). The entire Seinfeld oeuvre has episodic plot outlines, as well as season summaries. It seems to be an example of recentism, where contemporary TV is well sourced on the Internet, but older shows get deleted since their primary run occurred before Al Gore got to inventing the Interent. If you have an opinion please join the lively debate and keep and open mind. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full list of episode plot summaries up for deletion here at ARS and here at M*A*S*H_episodes_(Season_1). Every episode in season one is up for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As a note, most (I hope) are now listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television. Yes...they were all done individually...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton's attack on me is obnoxious and unfair. It presumes some nefarious scheme in my mind, which he cannot know. I stumbled across a few articles, looked at the entire 11 seasons of LoEs, and numerous random articles across the seasons, and found a FEW good ones, and many awful ones. having never seen a mass nom for TV survive AfD, being burned alive as schemes and bad faith, I opted to review a few a night. I even began updating the pithy and cliffhanging summaries in the LoEs as I AfD'd, in order to ensure a better LoE for all. Instead of being thanked for NOT making a presumed bad faith mass nom, I'm now vilified for doing it one by one, and for some bizarre inverse recentism. I would point out that OTHERCRAPEXISTS summarizes well the pointing to other articles by editors in defense of a different group, but RAN now insists that's Verboten on Wikipedia, and seeks to censor me on that matter, telling me that it's been superseded and I can no longer use that response. So let me say it differently: That other failures of editors and AfD can be found on Wikipedia is no reason to NOT hitch up your pants, tighten the bootlaces, and address this problem presented now. Wikipedia will never be perfect, but it can be moved closer by dealing with the current issue, not saying 'there are so many problems that we are better off not starting'. ThuranX (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made no attack on you, if you feel attacked it might be paranoia, but please do not attribute it to my writings. What I have done is pointed at that you are quoting an essay, and presenting it as if it were Wikipedia policy. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay, and if you would wikify it, people would be able to see that it is no more than an essay. I don't know who you are quoting, but I have never said "there are so many problems that we are better off not starting". Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No attacks? You mass posted to every AfD the same strawman comment, meaning I had to follow, with a similar Cut N Paste reply, only to have you go BACK and edit all your older comments to look as though I had cluelessly replied and ignored what you had to say, making me look like an asshole. That's an attack if ever there was. It's bad faith gaming the system, and borders on harassment; it's certainly unethical behavior. Because it is clear that you will not stop despite warnings from myself and Collectionian, I'm not wasting any more time debating it with you. I made a serious good faith effort, fixing the LoE for the First season, and nominating only a few at a time to avoid the 'mass deletions are always bad faith' rejoinders that always appear in such cases. I care about the outcome, but I'm not gonna sit here and get treated like shit for your lulz. I'm not gonna be on for a few days, and I won't be looking in on this when I do come back, because I have seen how unethical you are and have no desire to interact with you again on this matter.

For those asking why I didn't request a merge, or just boldly do one, a question raised here and at AfD, I find the article titles, given that most are disambiguated, to be highly improbably search terms, and thus redirects worthless. Further, Merge requests on pages not touched in over a year would go unresponded to, but the Merges would quickly be reverted. Instead, I brought articles, a few at a time, to AfD, believing, apparently erroneously, that it would demonstrate that I am fully reading and looking at each article individually, rather than making generalizations and mass nom'ing. I have seen mass noms fail on the basis of a single exception being discovered; and have no interest in seeing that happen here. I acknowledge that on any given single episode, some notable fact may have gone undocumented here, and that any such episode article may have a legitimate reason for existing, but that that won't happen for all, and those which it doesn't happen for can be evaluated on their own merits and deleted. My actions in individually nominating were all done in the best of intentions. People who have asserted this is some response to the AN/I ought to compare the dates of my first MASH AfDs to the start of that thread; they'll find the opposite more likely to be the case. ThuranX (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, his attack here and in the various AfDs are both unfair and bordering on incivility. Having looked at all the ones I could find myself, I believe these are all unnotable articles and should be deleted or redirected. I didn't mean to seem like I was vilifying you for not mass noming...was just a little grumpy from having to find them all. More annoyed at the people who made them in the first place. I'm for one glad someone is finally tackling this one, as I've noticed it before but just couldn't bring myself to do it. M*A*S*H does have some notable episodes, I'll grant that, but the bulk of them are not notable and will hopefully be rightfully deleted per guidelines and policy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again with "attack", what is with that? You are very thin skinned if you think challenging a deletion is an attack. I don't believe any due diligence was performed before the nomination. It appears that every season one episode was nominated in tandem. A quick search shows that the pilot was nominated for several awards and won one. The plot summaries are certainly reliable, there is a whole book devoted to them. They need to be expanded to be on par, with say, Seinfeld or a contemporary episodic show. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I will say one thing - AFD'ing a whole season without any attempt to seek a merge first is inappropriate. Yes, episodes may not be notable, but they should be covered at least, and despite the existence of brief blurbs in the episode lists, there's still a possibility of merging more material. Which maybe would have led to a similar solution as the recent South Park case, where some random mundane episodes were shown to be notable, so it is assumed the rest of the set is too as a show of good faith. Yes, for MASH, one will have to go to print sources most likely but I'd have a hard time believing that as groundbreaking as MASH was there are no books for it (there's at least one - though I don't know if all episodes have detailed coverage in it). A merge discussion is a much more appropriate forum to seek if there's a need to merge or if notability can be established. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Round the corner

Am I insane/misinformed, or is this a complete hoax? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, can't answer on sanity levels, but yes, that article is completely and total BS. Send to AfD (really wish we could do hoax CSDs!). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly podcast about television: you're invited

On Thursday, at 11 am EST (15:00 UTC Wikipedia time), there will be a podcast discussion on Skype with television scholar Jason Mittell, who has written a new textbook on television studies and has also written about (and participated in) the interactions between television and wikis. If you'd like to participate, please sign up: Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly/Episode76. --ragesoss (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Uniform standards for notability guidelines of TV episodes

Recently, through mass nomination of M*A*S*H episodes at AFD, a possible discontinuity has popped up in the dealing with articles for episodes of older TV series as compared to more contemporary series. The rationale for deletion of the M*A*S*H episodes is that they lack any lasting real-world significance and that reviews of them are not available, a position which is not unreasonable. However, many articles of more contemporary series are fleshed out by online reviews that, were the older series airing currently, would surely speak of them as well. Is it therefore fair to delete articles of episodes on older series when there are likely episodes of newer series that similarly lack lasting real-world significance, but for which immediate reactions (reviews) are much more available? What is the inherent notability of any TV episode? Surely, many TV episodes are independently notable, but what of the less obvious cases, or the episodes of old series that seem clearly non-notable and episodes of similar in-series significance from newer series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosleep (talk • contribs) 07:00, May 15, 2009 (UTC)

The onus is on those wanting to keep, always has been. Should the page be deleted? Maybe, maybe not. First, I would see if it's a disambiguated page or not. If it isn't, then the title should certainly be redirected to a parent article, because it's a likely search term. If it isn't, then it would depend on the edit history. If there is a long history, then preserve it and just redirect. If someone just recently created the pages, and they are disambiguated (i.e. "Episode Title (M.A.S.H.)"), then I'd say delete if they fail WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:PLOT, etc. All that being said, the fact that all reliable sources may only by the printed kind is not a reason to delete. If you know they exist and can show it, then do so. In other words, I would contact someone with a LexisNexis (or whatever) account that can search through archive newspapers and find stuff on those episodes. If they exist, then a search through there is likely to find them. If they do not, then I'd say that the episodes are largely non-notable (though, there are clear exceptions, as I think at least one MASH episode is featured, is it not?). That's my words on the subject.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the deletion of the M*A*S*H episodes - I only !voted keep in one AFD as an objection to the piecemeal nomination procedure. Objections raised by others got me to wondering, why is, for example, 5 O'Clock Charlie any less notable than, for a slightly unrandom example, Stranger in a Strange Land (Lost)? The article on the Lost episode even states that the episode is insignificant within the greater spectrum of the series, but since there are reviews from IGN and TV Guide and what have you, a much more substantive article is easily created. Articles such as that are probably the reason Lostpedia, The Infosphere, Memory Alpha, Simpsons Wiki, Family Guy Wiki, etc... were created in the first place. Does the availability of online reviews necessarily make the contemporary episode more notable, though? I would support deleting insignificant episodes of Lost or other contemporary series, but I somehow think that'd be a lot harder to get through AFD than the M*A*S*H episodes. And I don't think it should be, unless we somehow decide that the availability of the IGN reviews and such makes current series more notable. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 12:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Stranger in a Strange Land" was probably not the best one to make an example of, as the creator has acknowledged that is is widely regarded as the show's worst episode, which should substantially increase its notability. As for the rest of the Lost episodes, they certainly do not demonstrate thier notability, but the potential is there for each, as Lost is probably the most extensively covered series on the Internet, with a multitude of reviews and frequent cast and crew interviews. I say feel free to take them to AfD, but in the long run, they will just be recreated and brought up to good status by myself or someone else within the relevant WikiProject, so why bother when you can nominate articles that will stay deleted? –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As a general comment, notability should not be considered just within the bounds of one wikiproject as it reflects a consistent standard across the entire work (though as this is an RFC is hopefully will attract more beyond WP:TV). But in the general case - I would say that ultimately may episodes of shows today truly aren't notable despite the reviews from places like IGN, primarily that most end up as Plot and Reception, but don't have any information on creation or influence, and that a better treatment of the coverage would be season episode lists (with expanded plot summaries) with the the uncommon episode being a separate articles - effectively matching what most older shows have. However, pushing for that in the present environment isn't going to happen - the balance of inclusion verses deletion is too strained to move from what we have, in that as long as it meets the general notability guidelines it will have an article. That are some older TV shows were likely few episodes are really notable (probably the rule than exception) but other shows like MASH or All in the Family, which, now that they have been off the air for a long time, have a clear cultural influence that it is worth reevaluating the episodes of those to see which (if not all) episodes may be notable. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think newer series are getting unfair treatment. Most television series have only a few notable episodes, at most, and many newer series that don't even have one have had their episodes merged or deleted in the same fashion. However, I'd also agree with Masem that some episodes are being declared notable on the basis of one or two reviews that really do not establish true notability, but often will be enough to hit the GNG line. As for the M*A*S*H issue, there are some episodes that are certainly notable, though not necessarily in the first season. I know another was in the AfD area not too long ago and easily kept through tone of sources. Its final episode is likely easily notable, and I suspect the pilot could be. It does take more work to find sources, of course, but it seems there are plenty of people who will do that work to save articles in AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. Only in somewhat rare cases is an individual episode sufficiently notable for its own article even for a modern TV series. I don't think the pre-Internet series like M*A*S*H are getting stiffed at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the logical next step then be to delete insignificant episodes from contemporary series? I think that's a pretty big deal, so I'm hoping this gets a little more comment. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 03:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll never delete a page that meets the GNG, just won't happen. You might, if you're lucky and no one really cares about it, be able to merge one of those pages, but if it has the sources printed or online then it isn't happening. There are a lot of people who will fight for even the insignificant episodes that don't have sources, so if you come across one that does it's probably 100 times harder to delete or merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

So insignificant episodes from pre-internet series don't satisfy the GNG, but insignificant episodes from current series do? Is this really fair? Mind you, I'm not arguing that anyone is "getting the shaft," rather that treatment too favorable instead exists for a certain sort of article. It just doesn't make sense to me. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. If an insignificant episode from pre-internet series has sources then it clearly meets the GNG. If an insignificant episode from post-internet has sources then it clearly meets the GNG. If neither have sources, then neither meet the GNG. Some people ignore the GNG, some people don't. It depends on what community you find. If an insignificant, non-notable episode of The Simpsons had no sources whatsoever and would never have any sources, you'd still have every single one of the editors from that WikiProject guarding the existence of that article with their life. There's nothing that can be done about that. Unfortunately, that's just the name of the game. Some topics get special treatment merely because there is a legion of editors that will protect it, no matter what. Obscure shows, or just older shows that have come and gone over a decade ago often don't have this kind of protection and are generally subject to the GNG - like every other article on Wikipedia is (other than the ones protected). There is nothing to be done about that, it's just the way things are. You started this thread asking about "Uniform standards for TV episodes"...we had/have that. It's called WP:EPISODE....but just like with the GNG, it's pretty much ignored by some.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My preference is to keep them all, and definitely the ones that meet, or can meet, the GNG. You might look at the List of South Park episodes talk page to see a similar discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Bewitched list of episodes

On the list of Bewitched episodes, there is a section for the never filmed season 9. It, along with seasons 10 and 11 were contracted to be produced, but the show's star and co-owner Elizabeth Montgomery decided not to come back after season 8 finished in 1972. My question is, should season 9 or other never-made seasons be listed? Its section shows that it had 0 episodes, so I deleted it, but another user has brought it back. I wanted to check here if there were any general practices about this sort of thing, since I couldn't find any mention of similar issues in the WikiProject TV pages. Thanks Gardn108 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, none of those should be listed in the episode table. The episode table should only be for actual existing episodes. They should only be briefly mentioned in the lead, and only if properly sourcable. Also, that fansite link needs to come off the page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessors?

Is anyone working on the assessment requests? It doesn't seem like anyone has even looked at these for months! Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 10:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if we could get some more assessors here, or really ANY. Since November 2007, I've pretty much been the only reviewer at all, and there are currently 13 requests that have not been filled.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind assessing a few articles in my spare time. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at those Deal or No Deal articles tomorrow morning. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks to you both! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Production codes

Epsiode artcles often have a production code associated with them. In absense of a sourcable code, the format of "312"is used, where "3" denotes the season, and "12" the episode. This is the current convention that has bneen used for a long time. pd_THOR (talk · contribs) now demands that the "101" production code on 33 (Battlestar Galactica) be sourced according to the letter on WP:V. And even though I have sourced it to the official episode's homepage where the code appears, he still demands that the term "production code" must also be sourced. I have repeatedly pointed out that this is too trivial to source and puts undue weight on the policy, resulting in loss of cohesion and consistency in numbering the episodes.

I pointed out that many featured episode articles have an "unsourced" production number, for example A Streetcar Named Marge, which suffers the same "problem"; the code is listed, but not as "production code". pd_THOR's motivation that it will not pass GA/FA review for "33" if the term remains unsourced is therefor quite weak. I ask for comments in the hope that it results in a consensus regarding application of WP:V toward production codes. Must WP:V be followed to the letter, or are we still allowed to use any term for episode-related codes as an established convention. — Edokter • Talk • 10:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A streetcar named marge now has a fact tag. And as we've told you before Edokter, the code is only in the URL of the citation given, and this is not sufficient. The code needs to be in the prose of the website, not the URL. Drew Smith What I've done 11:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is in the title of the website as well, visible for all, as has been repeatedly pointed out. Also. no policy requires the the information must be "in the prose" of a website. — Edokter • Talk • 11:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not in the title of the website. It is nowhere to be found on the entire page. And, by the "312" argument this would be 133 not 101, so that argument is null. Drew Smith What I've done 11:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at the title bar of your browser. That is just as much a valid location of information. And I don't follow your 133 logic; 312 was purely an example. "33" is the title of the episode, not the episode number. It is the first episode of the first season, hence 101. — Edokter • Talk • 12:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Production codes are not mandated, first because they are hard to provide reliable sources for, and second because they often hold no real value to an article. IMO, if you have to put in a special note that explains what a production code is, and that if it looks like X and Y then that means an episode was filmed first but aired later, then you should really be describing why that episode was aired later.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, it should be sourced because of the difficulty in actually proving that what you are seeing is a "production code" and not simply an "episode number". I don't see anything in the above link that would suggest that "101" is that episodes "production code".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Edokter, the title bar (which I assume you mean the address bar where the url is) doesn't indicate that the production code is "101". It only indicates that this episode is identified numerically as "101". You cannot draw the conclusion, logically, that this is the production code of the episode. The average reader who might want to check such a thing wouldn't be able to 1) easily check to find that number and 2) know that that number was intended to represent the production code and not simple an episode identifier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the blue title bar, where it is literarely spelled out as "EPISODE 101". — Edokter • Talk • 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not see that, nor does that say "Production code: 101". Being called "Episode 101" merely means that it is the first episode of season one. It does not constitute an official production code, unless you can find a source that says that. Hell, a source that at least identifies that structure as their production code setup is fine, it doesn't have to necessarily be for that specific episode (i.e. A source that says "Production code 202" would insinuate that any number used in conjunction with the episodes that mirrored that setup was its production code number). Without such a thing, it's all speculation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As Bignole has already explained very well, pd_THOR is very correct. That article will not pass GA/FA as the production code is not sourced. Claiming that the title bar says "Episode 101" = the production code = WP:OR. If you can not source it to a reliable source that actually says "production code: 101" or the like, or, as Bignole noted, something explaining the series' production code numbering methodology, it doesn't belong in the article.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what he's talking about. When you go to the homepage, the tab, or for internet explorer using a single tab, the title bar, says episode 101. This still doesnt support the translation of episode 101 to production code 101. Drew Smith What I've done 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that it isn't a big deal to not have the number. As I stated before, unless there is something unusual about the episode's production (i.e. The eighth episode of Smallville's first season was supposed to be the fourth episode, but because of reshoots and story changes they had to push it back), then the number itself really has no true value. If you have it, reliably sourced, then I wouldn't say remove it for no reason. But if you cannot source it, then don't sweat it because no GA or FA will ever be failed because there "isn't a production code listed".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate method

In the absence of production codes, I have switched to using a structure more like in List of Numb3rs episodes and List of Jericho episodes. In this, I have two columns for episode number, one for the season running count and one for the series running count. I figure that this sidesteps the problem of production code much more efficiently; the production code information is often trivial information, and this conveys much more useful knowledge in my opinion. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a legitimate challenge on the table? i.e., unless pd_THOR asserts that the production number is, in fact, something other than 101, the "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" clause of WP:V has not been met. I realize this is a contrarian view, but really--do we need to cite the fact that FTL means "faster than light" in this context? What really makes something challenged is a good faith dispute over facts or interpretations, not merely a "prove it" demand. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• The thing is, often times, the production codes are nothing like 101, 221, etc. See List_of_Prison_Break_episodes#Episode_list, for example. If we hadn't known about the real codes, our information would be simply wrong. I know our standard is verifiability, not truth, but if the information has a fairly large chance of being wrong, and the same information that the "101, 221, etc." could be provided through other means, well, why not do that then? NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. This isn't a case of the production code being as common knowledge as the color of the Sun.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

B-Checklist in Template

I've started a discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Television#B Checklist to discuss adding a B-Class check list to the Television project template. Views appreciated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Age of Bobby Hill

There's a conversation going on here about Bobby Hill's age. One line of thinking says that he ages on the same timeline as the "read world" which would say that he's 23 even though he's still in middle school. The other line of thinking says that time moves more slowly in the King of the Hill world and he's ~14 (because he had his 14th birthday in a recent episode). OlYeller^Talktome 01:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

His age should be given in terms of the fictional work, i.e. in the series he is depicted as being 13 (or whatever his age was at the start of the series), and in episode X celebrated his 14th birthday. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Any chance I can get you to put that response on the talk page (here)? I feel that an editor is going to try to turn this into an edit war and your response would help prevent that. Thanks for your time. OlYeller^Talktome 03:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete viewer statistics

I recently added viewer statistics to the List of The Closer episodes page, only to have my addition reverted. The user removed my addition stating that since the statistics were not available for all seasons (and I do not know for sure whether this is true or not), that they should not be added for any episode. I don't find this to be a very persuasive reason, as any statistics add greatly to the article to offer an understanding of the amount of viewers who watch these episodes and how well the show did. I posted a message on the talk back and a talkback link on the user's talk page, but received no reply. After a week, I added back the viewer statistics and the user quickly removed them again, citing the possible lack of statistics for early episodes and also lack of consensus for my addition. I am posting here to request some comments be made at the article talk page so that we may reach a consensus on this issue. Thanks! --Odie5533 (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rugrats characters

Characters from 1990s television need some help with references. Come see Tommy Pickles, Reptar‎, Angelica Pickles, Phil and Lil DeVille, Susie Carmichael, Dil Pickles, Lila Sawyer, they are all up for deletion. Contemporary shows tend to get the best coverage so we have articles on Moe Szyslak and Eric Cartman. There is a trend to delete show episodes and character biographies for pre 2000 telecasts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters Redux

As part of the clean up of that list discussed back in March I merged several of the unnotable series characters into the newly created character list. Almost two months later, a single editor is objecting to the merge of Kim Greylek (and today, adding in Chester Beach), claiming that because they appeared in the opening credits, that is all the notability they need. Neither, however, has significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the merges stood for two months until he arrived, despite having other folks knowing and seeing the merges. He is using an AfD of a main series Law & Order character that closed as keep due to an influx from ye ol' ARS band, even though no notability was shown as a reason to not merge any others. Additional views needed at Talk:List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters#Merges of Unnotable Characters -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, an RfC has now started on this issue...some outside views are seriously needed....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration on Friends (TV Show) Seasons

I'd like to propose working on articles for the 10 seasons of Friends. Friends is one of the best television series for the past decades and deserves good season articles. Is someone interested in collaborating on that?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've worked on a number of season pages, getting them to FL and GA, and am also a huge fan of the series. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I'd be happy to help out. TheLeftorium 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, should we work on a season by season basis or just each one of us creates three season pages and then we collaborate after a week or so? We could start by looking at what we already have on Wikipedia. We already have season 10 article (a mess) which we could start on and then work from 1-9. Anyway I'd love to work with you to complete this thing.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to start with Friends (season 1) first. There's a lot of information (development, casting, etc.) in The Pilot (Friends) that we can start with. TheLeftorium 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something like this: User:Theleftorium/Sandbox4 (needs to be cleaned up, of course). TheLeftorium 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work (although a lot of stuff you've got in that sandbox overlaps with the main article and the Pilot article; the development section ought to only have information about the development of season 1 for instance). Bradley0110 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, could u move the page to the main space Friends (season 1)? I think this is a major boost. I'll create the infobox and get the dvd box image. After putting it on the main space we could nominate it for DYK, boosting the editors working on the page. We could collaborate on the talk page there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Bradley0110) Yes, I/we will shorten it down so that only the most important information will be left (this is just a mock-up). I will move it to Friends (season 1) now. TheLeftorium 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just be careful you don't just simple copy and paste the info from the pilot page. One, because we shouldn't have two pages saying the same information verbatum, and two because I assume you don't want to make the pilot page obsolete. For comparison, here is the Smallville (season 1) page compared to the Pilot (Smallville) page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Right. The season 1 page ought to have the basic facts of the season; technically speaking the main cast didn't go through the casting process for the first season, they were cast for "some pilot". Development of season 1 began after the production of the pilot had been completed, i.e. hiring writing staff, directors, refining the characters, etc. We ought to thrash out the format of these seasons articles on the Talk: Friends page, to avoid cluttering up this project page. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Diaa. I would love to help out, but I'm going to be quite inactive for the next week or so. After that, I will definitely try to help out. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and just a quick question, are we aiming for season articles or season lists? With season lists, we do not need as much or any production information compared to a season article, just compare Smallville (season 1) to Veronica Mars (season 1). I much prefer season lists because they are usually shorter and easier to write. Also, as Bignole mentioned, a lot of the time the same information is repeated several times on different pages. If there is much production information other than what's on the main page for individual seasons, then that's fine, but if we can't find much else, I say we aim for season lists. Thoughts? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was aiming for season lists, because the majority of the page is the list of episodes and the process of FL is better than GA or FA.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea of season lists too; we can't achieve the same level of detail on production and reception as the Smallville articles (at least not for every season). Bradley0110 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a rule that all the season pages must be the same. If you can achieve the detail necessary for FA on a season 2, but not on season 4, then so be it. Some people get bent out of shape about it, but the fact remains that there is nothing that says they must be the same, especially if the information is not available. But, that's a call the community of editors that work on Friends articles should make - whether they want them all to be the same, or to strive for their own excellence individually.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, lists are a lot easier and you can do whatever you want, but if there is no plan for Friends episodes, I suggest season articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Friends (season 1) has been created and ready for your contributions. It would be great if some would tune in. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Degrassi

Degrassi: The Next Generation is currently in its eighth season. 22 episodes were produced for the season; the 18th episode aired April 12 but the final four episodes have not been broadcast yet. From the outset the producers planned for the episodes to be a two-hour television movie which would be split into four half-hour episodes in syndication. They were originally titled "Paradise City" Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

In February the US broadcaster The N began advertising the four episodes as "Degrassi Goes Hollywood", a two-hour TV movie. Some time in March or April, Canadian channel CTV, the original home-country broadcaster, also began advertising it a such. Eventually, exec producer Stephen Stohn began to call it that on his Twitter page while talking about The N's broadcast, despite previously calling it "Paradise City" on the official Degrassi messageboards even while The N were calling it "Degrassi Goes Hollywood".

Since that time, there have been a large number of edits to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8) regarding the title. One editor claims "Degrassi Goes Hollywood" is the name the networks have decided to call the movie, but the episodes are still actually called "Paradise City". Another editor says "Degrassi Goes Hollywood" is the correct title because the networks would be dumb to call it something it isn't. The first editor's argument held more weight when the exec producer and studio were calling it "Paradise City". (The article had a reference for "Paradise City", while the editor who changed to "Degrassi Goes Hollywood" did not add any references) Today CTV issued a press release for the 2009-2010 television season, calling the movie "Paradise City: Degrassi Goes To Hollywood" and saying it will air in September before the 9th season begins.[1]

This raises a few issues:

1. It's a Canadian show, but both CTV and The N have some influence over its content. CTV is the original series broadcaster, and The N is a foreign rebroadcaster. However, the movie is going to air on The N before it does on CTV. So is it called "Degrassi Goes Hollywood", the name The N gives it, "Paradise City: Degrassi Goes To Hollywood" (CTV's title), or "Paradise City" the original title used by the studio (I'm not sure what they're calling it, my phone calls on this issue have gone unreturned)
2. Do we put the movie or episode titles in the article now, or wait until it is actually broadcast?
3. Because it's airing in September as part of CTV's new broadcast season, is it part of the new season, even though it was produced as part of season 8? The Simpsons does this regularly, see List of The Simpsons episodes. So too did the first three seasons of Star Trek: Voyager. Or, do we count them as their own block of episodes (such as with 24: Redemption) or do we still count the episodes as part of the eighth season?

Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is an interesting conundrum. My instinct says to name it what the ownership calls it, because they are the ones that made it and are the ones that will produce the DVDs that will list that title there as well. That said, if it's wrong then when the DVDs come out it can be changed. As far as where it is listed (season 8 or 9), I would ask, "Is it supposed to be the lead-in for season 9?" If so, then I would include it there, but then again I'm not familiar with Canadian programming. If it's supposed to be the season 8 finale, just in a TV movie format then I would include it there. The Incredible Hulk began its life as 2 made-for-TV movies, that eventually created a TV series like 6 months later, but the DVDs actually list those 2 movies as episodes 1 and 2. Hmm, this is a little difficult.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Confused, Annoyed and On the Verge of Vomiting

But instead of the latter two, let me talk about the first. I Am really confused how The Ed Sullivan Show, which lasted over 20 years and introduced many important people, is a "low importance" show, while several recent flops starring nobody of any note are often "mid-importance" or even "high-importance". Retro Agnostic (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it. We don't base anything around that category to begin with, and frankly I'd love to have a discuss about removing it. It's a subjective category, as you've pointed out, that doesn't help us to understand the article any better.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Duncan5qwerty

Could someone take a look at this new user's contributions? Cheers, —Ruud 11:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Montana episode list

There is a long drawn out discussion at Talk:List of Hannah Montana episodes#Changes to the template used in the episode articles. There's a lot of disagreement about whether or not to use tables, whether or not to transclude from the season pages, and a few other things. I've tried directing the editors to MOS:TV and this entire project, but it's not really working out. Funny thing is, I don't think they're our usual Disney set. If anyone can give any further input, please do. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul at Peer Review

The article Bart Sells His Soul is currently undergoing a peer review, input would be appreciated at its peer review page: Wikipedia:Peer review/Bart Sells His Soul/archive1. Cirt (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Italicized titles

A relatively new template, {{italictitle}} is currently being used to change the article titles on various pages that have the scientific name of an organism. There is currently a bot request to mass-update these articles. I just wanted to bring up a discussion here regarding the use of this template in other article titles where it may be useful.

Throughout many articles, including Stargate SG-1, the title is italicized when used within the article, but not in the actual title. All input is welcome to decide whether or not to implement this new feature in films, video games, and book titles.

Discussions on the use of this italicized title feature for use in organism articles can be seen here and here. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Connor, Sarah (TSCC).jpg

file:Connor, Sarah (TSCC).jpg has been nominated for deletion 70.29.212.226 (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Scrubs merges

I've put up multiple Scrubs characters or merge (here:Talk:List of characters on Scrubs#Main character merges), but have gotten opposition; I'm not against keeping the articles separate, but have not been given any real reasoning for keep them that way. It'd be great if someone could drop by and provide some information that creation/etc does exist and is clearely accessible, for at least some of the characters. Or, just to give your opinion on the matter. Thanks, WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lost issue

Is there a limit on how many actors can be be placed in the Starring section here? I think the limit should be aa least ten.--23prootie (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no specific number, but it is addressed at WP:MOSTV.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode list templates

I am proposing some code changes to both {{Episode list}} and {{Japanese episode list}}. The full discussion is occurring on Template talk:Japanese episode list#Code updates. --Farix (Talk) 20:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

just a heads up

I tagged The Real World: Washington, D.C. with your project. APK (If You Wanna) 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of New Jersey

Would someone help to improve the The Real Housewives of New Jersey article? ---kilbad (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce organization

Team, can we start arranging the TV WorkGroups into something more coherent; like genre's maybe? Medical, Police/Law, Comedy, Sitcom...I would even volunteer to fix up the project template....I trip over a number of articles about shows or movies; that really need the attention of someone who actually knows the genre... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 03:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

TV Episodes RS for Plots/Characters

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section questioning whether a fictional work can be the source for its own plot. As this discussion could potentially have wide reaching implications across television series articles and episode lists, I felt the project should be made aware of the discussion in case members would like to offer their reviews there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Melanie LaPatin

Is Melanie LaPatin considered a "So You Think You Can Dance" choreographer? If so, perhaps someone could add that information to her article and the So You Think You Can Dance template? ---kilbad (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

Does this project not have a collaborations of the week (or another length of time)? If not, can we please consider establishing one? They can be quite productive, and it is fun to work together and watch an article expand within such a short time. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For this one *grin* its been an issue of not enough active editor participation in the project as a whole to really allow for an organized collaboration effort. There are some informal ones done at times, when a request is made and responded to here, but not very often unfortunately. While they can be productive and fun, I suspect a lot of collaboration efforts also suffer from editor conflicts and basic differences in editing styles/methods that seem to hinder efforts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not suggest a couple options informally? I might be down. Don't pick anything too hard (at least for me). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

I would like someone to assist me in finding reliable sources to state that several programs aired in various non-English speaking nations during the 1980s and 1990s. For specifics, see Super Sentai#Distribution.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Upcoming TV" templates

Has anyone ever looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television? At Wikipedia:WikiProject Television#Upcoming TV there's a link to a discussion about the use of the future television templates that has been added in April 2006, and has ever stayed there since. Needles to say, the discussion isn't active anymore. :)

Anyhow, I'm here because this project page implies that these templates should be added to each and every future television show, which directly contradict the longstanding guidelines for the template ("This template is not meant to be on all TV show articles that are currently running/about to be running, just on those articles where containing future information is an issue in some way"). So I propose to either change the section accordingly, or remove it entirely. --Conti|✉ 13:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the section pretty clearly indicates the templates should be placed on articles that are not verified through reliable sources or that are full of rumors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least one editor misunderstood the purpose of the template because of this page, and looking at the countless articles that use the future television template, I'd say that he's not alone. --Conti|✉ 10:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Prison Break GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Prison Break for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

TV show names

I couldn't find any guideline on this, but what should a article on a TV show be named if the show has different names for different parts of the world? I am specifically talking about ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night SmackDown. They are US shows, produced by a US company, and the official website of these shows use these names. Some users are claiming we should not use these names though because in some international markets they are just called "ECW" and "WWE SmackDown". Shouldn't shows go the English name in their country of origin? TJ Spyke 03:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that these shows switch nights and stations frequently, and their real names are not "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown", but simply "ECW" and "WWE SmackDown", then that's what their names should be. Smackdown used to be on Thursday nights, and only recently switched to Fridays in the past couple years. The official website only lists them as SmackDown and ECW, that's what they should be called. TV articles typically don't reflect the station or timeslot in their article names, because their official name generally doesn't include those things. Usually, they are merely gimmicks used for marketing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto what Bignole said. Those articles are both misnamed, as is ECW on TNN. The shows are titles simply ECW and SmackDown (or WWE SmackDown). The inclusions of the station names and nights is very inappropriate and should be corrected quickly. The only shows that I can think of that would legitimately have the channel name in their title is something like ABC Nightly News or the like, which neither of these shows are. So short answer is yes, they should use their official English names, however the ones they are using now are not it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Switch frequently? SmackDown has only changed names twice, and both were when WWE had no choice. It changed from "WWF SmackDown" to "WWE SmackDown" in 2002 after the company was legally forced to change its name from WWF to WWE, and then in 2006 when it changed to it's OFFICIAL name (according to the company itself) of "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" when UPN (which was airing the show at the time) moved it to Friday nights. The announcers always refer to it as SmackDown. ECW was originally called "ECW on Sci Fi" and only changed its name to "ECW on Syfy" after the Sci Fi Channel changed it's name. The company that owns these shows considers their official names to be "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" and "ECW on Syfy", so that means those ARE their official names. There are tons of articles on shows with similar names (like MLB on Fox, Sunday Night Football, Monday Night Football, NBA on TNT, etc.) There is no questing their names here, my general question was what to do if a show's name in it's home country is different in other countries. TJ Spyke 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost TJ, what other countries air "NBA on TNT" or "MLB on Fox" specifically? Really... Anyway, on a side note ECW on TNN (the specific show that ran from 1999 through 2000) isn't actually incorrectly named as it only aired on TNT and in the US. ECW on Syfy (the WWE owned present show) is. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just ECW and SmackDown. The station has nothing to do with the name. The fact that the WWE bought ECW doesn't change the fact that it's still ECW. We don't have Smallville on The WB and Smallville on The CW, it's just Smallville. Where exactly are you seeing "ECW on SyFy" as the official name? You cannot pull from other examples and say "this is true for this show". The pages should be simply "ECW" and "WWE SmackDown". Even the WWE website just says "SmackDown" and "ECW", none of this "on SyFy" or "Friday Night" stuff. You cannot pull a marketing gimmick into a TV show name. Why we have Extreme Championship Wrestling, ECW on TNN AND ECW on Syfy is beyond me, because they're all the same show. The fact that it was bought by someone else, or changed stations, or timeslots doesn't change the fact that it's still the same show. Notice how we don't have a WWF page, but merely renamed the original World Wrestling Federation article to WWE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not just ECW or SmackDown. The TV show "ECW on Syfy" carries the ECW name, but that's it. As for their website, guess you didn't bother checking the TV Shows section [2]. As for your question on the 3 ECW articles: Extreme Championship Wrestling is about the company that existed from 1993 until 2001 (when it went bankrupt). ECW on TNN is the TV show that ECW had which aired from 1999-2000. ECW on Syfy is a show which WWE created when they decided to bring back ECW as a WWE Brand Extension. All of this is explained in those articles. To put it in terms of other sports, it would be like saying "Why have National Football League, ESPN Sunday Night Football, and NBC Sunday Night Football (except WWE is more different as the 2 ECW shows are from 2 different companies). The ECW shows are NOT related to each other in any way, it would be like claiming Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Voyager are the same show.

TJ (you forgot to sign) this isn't about what station a show is on. The argument is about the name of the article being that of the show. In this case, with "ECW" and "WWE SmackDown" being the names of the shows, the articles should be named the same way.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Except the names of the shows are "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown". For some international markets they brand it something else, but WWE (both on their site and on the actual shows themselves) still consider ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night SmackDown to be their names. TJ Spyke 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Except you've already been proven wrong. "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" are the official names in the US, but not everywhere else in the world. You keep saying "some" international markets to try to downsize the magnitude of the argument when in fact it isn't "some" international markets that name the shows at such. Its actually ALL international markets that name the shows the way they do.

Let me use this example again: "ECW on Syfy" doesn't air in Canada or anywhere else in the world, "ECW" does, and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" doesn't air in the UK or anywhere else in the world, "WWE SmackDown" does. "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" air in the US. Get it?

So if the shows are officially named "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" ONLY in the US while in the rest of the world including all other English speaking countries the shows are officially named "ECW" and "WWE SmackDown" then the latter are the common names. Because this is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia, the common names should be used, those being "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW" ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, just because they are known as something else in some other markets doesn't change their name. So what if ECW on Syfy is called "ECW" in Canada? It's name is still ECW on Syfy. Sam with SmackDown. There is no reason to not use their official names in their home country. Why not just call Raw "WWE Monday Night Raw"? Under your logic it should go there because even in programming guides in the US it is called that. Who cares what WWE calls their show. TJ Spyke 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

TJ you fail to understand the subject of the argument. I am not asking you to prove that "ECW on Syfy" and "Friday Night SmackDown" are the official names of the shows IN THE U.S. Because the names "ECW" and "WWE SmackDown" are used everywhere else in the world even during the show itself, then It is clear and obvious that "ECW on Syfy" and "Friday Night SmackDown" are NOT the official names of the shows in the rest of the world. So I am asking you right now to prove that "ECW on Syfy" and "Friday Night SmackDown" are the official names of the shows around the world.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

TJ, I did check the website. You didn't go to the show's personal pages, but the general listing of all the shows. Notice Smackdown's page does not say "Friday Night SmackDown". Notice ECW's page doesn't say "on SyFy" as part of the name. It lists the channel as one it appears on, and in the US the shows are marketed as "on SyFy" and "Friday Night...", but that's not the name of the show itself. You are confusing a gimmick with the name of the show. A gap in years (thus indicating a new series of the program) would require that we rename the articles to be "ECW (YEAR TV show)", like every other article that has multiple programming histories, but the show is just called "ECW".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

They tend to shorted the names on individual sections. In actual articles talking about the site, they do use "ECW on Syfy" [3][4][5] (the third one you have to wait for the ECW logo to come up). TJ Spyke 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I've put in a request at the naming conventions guideline page for additional input as to the proper name of the article. TJ we really need to centralize these discussions, so if you could direct the people over at the Wrestling Project to this discussion, as I've seen you have one going on there as well, that would be wonderful. We cannot have one discussion decide one thing, and another discussion decide another.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like I should leave this reply at that article. But to make sure I'm heard, I'll leave another one there as well. For the ones not familiar with pro wrestling I'll explain the best I can. Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) was a pro wrestling promotion that survived throughout the 90s until in 2001 it in lack of a better word died. In 2003, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), the newly renamed World Wrestling Federation (WWF) due to a court order, bought all of ECW's assets. In 2005, Rob Van Dam convinced Vince MacMahon to revive ECW for a reunion show. That reunion show happened, and was mainly sponsored thanks to the highly successful The Rise and Fall of ECW DVD, in June 2005 called ECW One Night Stand (2005). The event was also successful, which lead to ECW being revived as apart of the WWE Brand Extension in June 2006 with ECW One Night Stand (2006). With the ECW brand being created and WWE having ECW broadcasted world wide as their third tv show next to WWE Raw and WWE Smackdown. Now the above comments from TJ and Bulletproof are simply this in my interpretation. TJ believes we should go by the US names and name them ECW on Syfy, WWE Monday Night Raw, and WWE Friday Night SmackDown because that is what they are broadcasted by WWE in the US. That was a bit redundant but I don't care. Now Bullet believes we should go by their International names, really their common names. I agree with Bullet somewhat. Now my opinion comes down that the shows should be mainly about the brands. The shows are based off of the brands. They should be named WWE Raw, WWE SmackDown, and WWE ECW. They should then explain primarily about the history of the brand. Then afterwards, have a section on the tv show. Like indy promotion articles have the history of the promotion first, then any tv shows. The common name of the brands and the tv shows are Raw, SmackDown, and ECW, so IMO that is what they should be named as.--WillC 06:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pop in and point out that on this week's episode of ECW, there was not a single mention of "ECW on Syfy." The entire episode was "Welcome to ECW," "Tonight on ECW," "Later tonight in our main event on ECW." I live in the US, by the way. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

How many fair-use images can be used in one article?

So I decided to checkup on my "favorite" TV logo (File:TBN-Crest_Blockletters.jpg) and I noticed the TelstraClear article was using the logo without a boilerplate. Curious, I go and look at the channel lineup page, and I notice that it is using alot of fair-use logos in it's channels table. For comparison, List of Dish Network channels and List of DirecTV channels seem to do good on not using said logos. I just have to ask, is the useage overkill, or is there some standard i'm not quite following?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Time left for those logos to remain in the TelstraClear article: 5… 4… 3… 2… –thedemonhog talk • edits 11:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage overkill. Delete all. --MASEM (t) 12:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed them. Someone, please keep an eye out for dissenters who revert because they like the pretty colors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good lord! I knew they were getting bad with the channel logos of late, but that's just insane! Thanks for taking care of those...will also keep an eye out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical logos

Regarding historical logos of TV shows and TV channels, there is a discussion at the Wikipedia:Nonfree talk page here: Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#How.2C_when.2C_and_why_for_historical_logo WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on possible John Munch list article...

Hey all. I've been working on creating episode articles for all the Homicide: Life on the Street episodes, and it inspired me to work on another article somewhere down the road. John Munch (the detective character played by Richard Belzer) has appeared as a character in more than 330 television episodes, including 119 on Homicide and 200+ on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. The character's been around for more than 15 years and, according to the Munch article, is the only fictional character to be played by a single actor on eight different television shows. I'd like to make a list article that lists every television episode Munch has appeared in. I envision it being structued much like a season list article, but instead of a three- or four-sentence description of the episode, each one would include a three- or four-sentence description of the specific part Munch played in that episode. Obviously, this would require quite a bit of work on my part, and I wanted to see if I could get some feedback here to see if this article would satisfy Wikipedia policies and standards; I'd hate to do the work only to see it get removed. Also, a question: would I have to get a third-party source for every single episode description? Or is the episode alone a sufficient enough source that I don't have to do that? Any feedback on this would be much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn _(c) 05:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think 330 3-4 sentence descriptions would fit on one page. As long as you can do about half real world, half plot, you're probably fine, but that sounds like 330/24 = 13+ season like pages. Someone will probably try to delete them, too. I don't they'd be successful, but who knows. It'd be a wiki first. I'm sure someone here can tell you why they'd absolutely hate such a page or series of pages. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't need third-party sources for a plot description, but you would need them to satisfy WP:NOTE. If he's such a celebrated character then I would think that there are probably at least some third-party sources discussing the character in a real world capacity (whether through a episode review where they talk about the casting, or discuss characteristics). Most of what's on the page right now is just plot, possible OR, or just plain irrelevant (*cough*Munch enjoys fig milkshakes*cough*). For his plot info, I would cover anything major that he was involved in. You don't have to cover every episode appearance, and shouldn't cover every one, as I'm sure the character didn't have a significant role in all 330 episodes. Anyway, given your resource finding abilities Kahn, I wouldn't be surprised if you could dig up some good sources about the character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just realized what you really asking. Personally, I don't think that a list of John Munch episodes would really meet any guideline, except maybe WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It isn't a TV show called "John Munch", and most of the roles were not entirely that significant. The question would be, "why does every episode have to be mentioned, and why can this info not be placed in the John Munch article?" It would be considered indiscriminate, because the only connection any of these episodes have is the appearance of a single recurring character. Anything significant would be in relation to the character himself, and not the episodes. Unlike Peregrine, I think a "List of episodes John Munch appears in" would probably be deleted in an AfD, because it would be hard (unless you could find sources to prove that the list of episodes themselves are notable, and not just the idea of him appearing in 330 episodes is) to prove why this warranted an article beyond simply relaying plot information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I see absolutely NO reason to create such a list. Your creation of the individual Homicide episode pages is already against established guidelines for notability and only creates more work for others who will have to come behind you and remerge them all back to the appropriate individual episode lists because the large majority of them are not notable (even if they are awesome). Also, there is little point in listing "the role he played in each" since he played the same character throughout - a police detective. First Homicide, then SUV. As Bignole said, it would be an indiscriminate list, and completely redundant considering he appeared in pretty much every episode of BOTH major series. I'd recommend sticking to actually working on the Munch article itself, which suffers from a glut of OR and plot rather than providing actual real world coverage on the character's creation, conception, Belzer's depiction, reception, and the overall phenomenon of having such a record. There are surely tons of reliable sources covering and exploring why the character is so appealing to continue being revived. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, all. :) I imagined it was probably something of an unrealistic thought, but it's good to have the feedback to confirm it. Incidentally though, Collectonian, I'm only creating pages for those episodes where I can find significant coverage and reliable sources that they satisfy notability standards... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 13:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Letterman's Palin joke notable?

There has been an ongoing debate in Late Show with David Letterman about whether Letterman's Palin joke is notable. A straw poll is currently being conducted on this issue. As the article is a member of the television WikiProject I am posting here in the hopes that more editors will get involved in this decision.Datacharge (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Meridian, MS TV Stations

I didn't know if I should post this on a task force of this project, so if I should, please redirect me there, but I have a question. I've been working on the Meridian, Mississippi article and I'm about to put it up for GA (then hopefully FA), but before I do that, I would like the Media section updated. This area is not really my forté, so I was wondering if there were any experts here that could help me out. I know that Analog TV is no longer in use in the US, but I have no idea what the difference between UHF and VHF Digital transmission is. I was wondering if anyone here knew how to look up what stations play in the city and whether they are UHF or VHF frequencies (or both if that's possible). You can reply here if you want or drop a note at my talk page. Thanks! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Episode References

While it is helpful and easy to locate information by referencing each specific episode to a direct link where information can be found, would it be easier to just have one edit notice, instead, that lists a credible source?

I noticed certain other episode lists have an edit notice that cites TVGuide.com as a source for episode information. I was wondering if for the simplicity of TV show pagse, this would be a good tool to implement for most episode lists? Tubesurfer (talk)

No, the lists should be properly referenced and that is not a good "tool". An edit summary note is pure laziness, IMHO, and really isn't verifiable to just say "yeah, go look on this site somewhere". Information that needs to be referenced should be properly referenced per guidelines and quality standards. Keep in mind as well that most casual readers will never see that "edit notice" nor can you cover an entire episode list in a single source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's something for you guys

The Othersiders is a television show that you haven't rated yet. Just to let you know.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One of over 7000. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment is generally where requests for assessments on specific articles should go. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhh...My bad.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The West Wing elections up for deletion

FYI, The West Wing election articles are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 25. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Should Brazilian TV channel be listed in the infobox when Brazil is airing episodes before the US

In the TV show article Kamen Rider: Dragon Knight i added the Brazil TV channel into the infobox as Brazil is airing episode 16 up before the US but Ryulong removed it from the infobox saying "It is not proper to give undue weight to a foreign broadcast". What do you think should the Brazilian TV channel be listed in the infobox? Powergate92Talk 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the infobox itself, it says do not add foreign broadcasters here. Unless the show is Brazilian, then it shouldn't be in the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As it is an American series, no, the Brazilian TV channel should not be added to the infobox. Recommend discussing possible ways to note this in the article text, if it was not just a one episode event. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Character (arts)#Gathering material on character into one article

Other thoughts are needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank Peregrine Fisher for weighing in on this topic, and encourage others to weigh in on this as well. I am not simply looking for people to agree with me on this matter, but also consensus. Two editors by themselves going back and forth on this -- whether the article is best titled Fictional character or Character (arts), or whether we can have articles with both of these titles -- is not going to solve anything. Flyer22 (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Hill (King of the Hill)

On this character's page, the birth date of the character has been disputed. I started a conversation on the talk page (see here). I asked for people in related Wikiprojects to comment on this discussion, including this project. Rather than explaining my possibly biased side of the story, I invite you to check out the edit history and my previous link to the talk page and make your own opinion. I'd really appreciate your help, regardless of the outcome. I just want a consensus to be reached. Thanks. OlYeller^Talktome 14:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The X-Files

I want to replacee The X-Files page with my one, can i do that. My one reaches all the possinle guidelines which the main don't! --TIAYN (talk) 08:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest following WP:BRD. Be Bold and do the change. If you are reverted then start a discussion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...looks like an improvement to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems like BRD has kinda already happened.[6] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason for this request was because I reverted TIAYN's changes when he first posted them, and suggested that he ask here. I'd appreciate it if several editors could review the changes, as I have some real concerns with some of the rewritten copy, the removal of references, and so on. In particular, it could use a thorough pass from a good copy-editor, a spell- and grammar-check, a check to see that good references haven't been removed, and various other reviews. It might also be worth blending the two versions. (I suggested Truth post here because, contrary to my original plan, I won't have a chance to do a detailed analysis of the two versions for at least a week. Any assistance would be appreciated.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, sourcing is harder to do than copy editing (usually) but I'm not familiar with either version, and it looks like we might have a combo or something going on now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is the old one, if you want, i can check through the sources to see if i did any errors. My one, has some problems, but compared to the old one, my one is just a little walk in the park. If somebody could do a decent copyedit on the present article i would gladly be appreciated. If you have any problems with how it stands now, post here or on my talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

TIAYN, in the future, you should revise large existing articles like this one section by section so that other editors can better analyze your changes ... actively editing the article itself over hours/days rather than pasting a complete revision from your sandbox. Though your version may have its improvements, there are apparently a few shortcomings, and the way you have applied it has made going through the changes more difficult. One wonders if that was your intent. In any case, I don't think many would object of Czat or someone else reverted your changes again so that you could apply them in a more sensible way.— TAnthony^Talk 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured lists on the main page

I recently started a discussion about nominating featured lists for the main page, and wanted to know if perhaps some of you editors would consider contributing to the discussion happening there. ---kilbad (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject The X-Files

I've just created WikiProject The X-Files, does somebody want to join? --TIAYN (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll spread the word about this, but I won't join, is that ok? --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of QI

QI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

IMDb and TV.com infobox categories now empty

Television articles with an IMDb link in the infobox and Television articles with a TV.com link in the infobox are now empty. If there is little or no chance of anyone adding those into new infoboxes or adding them back into existing ones, I think that those two categories can now be deleted. I could be wrong however. LA (T) @ 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done per WP:C1. _TalkIslander 21:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about making an Outline of television?

Here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

Could this be useful to your wikiproject too?

There's an Outline of radio.

Outline of birds was the result of this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#What do you think about making an Outline of birds?

What do you think about making an Outline of television?

The Transhumanist 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Title Card Image applicable for the main TV show article........and the Seasons?

File:NCIS title.jpg is boilerplated for NCIS (TV series), but is also used for each of the seasons. List of NCIS episodes also has the Season 4 box, but is not used in the respective season. Acceptable, or needs to be rectified?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While there is no set image selection guideline, typically the season pages use the DVD box art (no image if it has not been released yet), and the LOE page really doesn't warrant an image to begin with - let alone a randomly picked season image. This has been something popping up on LOE pages (even some newly featured ones) lately. Given that there generally isn't real world commentary in most LOE pages, it's kind of hard to justify the need for an image there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

BOLD moves then. Right.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd follow WP:BRD. I'd go ahead and supply the season pages with season DVD images though. Don't simply remove them and hope those editors replace them with season images. It would be the courteous thing to do. I would also swap the season DVD image on the LOE page with the title card, give that that is a more encompassing image for all seasons than just one DVD cover.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not my job to "help" them out, so to speak. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about TV schedule in articles

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules for the discussion if interested. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

TV.com

Can TV.com be used as a source? I've been sort of between two minds about it as it is used in television userboxes, but is the information not user-submitted? --^{SteelersFanUK06} ReplyOnMine! 00:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they have paid staff writers, but 99% of it is user generated and therefore probably not reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the news would be acceptable but things on the episodes or characters pages would not be reliable. BOVINEBOY2008 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless they identify specifically where they got the info (i.e. They don't say something like "a source at the studio") then it's probably ok. Then again, unless it's a first hand interview they conducted chances are they are reprinting someone else's work and you'd be better off going to the original source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential merge if info

There is a discussion at Template talk:Smallville#Actors regarding the merging of all of the actors from this recently deleted template into the general Smallville nav box. Opinions are requested to arrive at a more sound consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed T.F

Why don't we make a Scrubs Task Force or something a like. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Pedro J. ^{the rookie}
2. BOVINEBOY2008

Comments

I really don't think there are that many articles to start a complete task force. BOVINEBOY2008 18:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There is Soundtrack, the shows page, the interns, quots, the Blanks, the template, list of episodes, the caracters, Sacred Heart Hospital, production cast, and many other articals and things that can be can expanded or created. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Category:Scrubs (TV series) there are a total of 14 articles tagged as Scrubs articles, not counting the 63 episodes. I would support the task force and possibly even join it, but at this point, there aren't that many tagged articles that would fall in the scope. BOVINEBOY2008 18:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a Moment. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Look there is going to be a nother season and possibly the interns are going to srow into at least puting them in an artical, and we have to make articals about the seasons and we have a lot to make if we decide to do the TF. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a taskforce is ok. A WikiProject, no. Most taskforces just require a number of participants and at least a dozen articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's all right, a task force it is. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you think Bovineboy2008. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not! I am working on a project right now for List of Nintendo DS games but I'd be willing to go in after that! BOVINEBOY2008 20:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A taskforce is better than a wikiproject, but you'd almost be better off just using this page. It isn't really that swamped with conversation. Or you could use the main Scrubs page. Wikiprojects and taskforces seem like they'll get more action from participants, but they don't really. Do a bunch of work, and announce it here, and you'll probably get the most help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, maybe i could tell some Scrubs editors to see what they think. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Age fields in fictional character infoboxes

I see discussion on this pop up from time to time, and I think we should remove "age" from all fictional character infoboxes. There are too many problems with in-universe perspective, WP:OR, and edit warring, and very few benefits for 99% of fictional characters. I haven't looked into the infobox tree, but hopefully we can remove it from a couple of places, and it won't show up after that. Then maybe a bot can clean up. If it's needed in 1% of the articles for some reason, we can figure out a workaround for them - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree! They are already removed, in general, from anime/manga article for many of the same reasons: often WP:OR, too in-universe, often irrelevant, and frequently a cause for edit warring. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have to go through Category:Fictional character infobox templates by hand, or is there an easier way? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

With consensus, the field itself can just be removed from the template, which will clear most out. Could also modify the template to have it add any with the age field put in a special cat for items with deprecated fields, then run through with AWB or a bot. I suspect there are quite a few fields that also should go beyond age though. That template is hideously bloated. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also on board with this, it is a much-abused parameter with little value. What about date of birth/death fields? These are basically used for the same purpose (with or without the "birth date and age" type templates) and off the top of my head I can't think of an article where this info is especially important either. Data that is truly notable will have a natural place in the body of an article, and will likely seem less trivial when laced in that way.— TAnthony^Talk 05:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes! Template:Infobox character is a mess. "Call sign" is a particularly funny one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion on TAnthony's talk page about this seems to mostly have inspired this discussion. Though I was originally against the removal, I am now willing to go along with it. I have seen Collectonian clean up a lot of messy articles on Wikipedia regarding fiction. If she feels that the ages should be removed from the infobox, which it seems that she does, then I am more inclined to agree in this case than not to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For a possible inspiration, {{Infobox animanga character}} has far less "crufty" fields, while still having the flexibility for series specific stuff; though it also does currently have an age field. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I too support the removal of all age/date related parameters. Sarilox (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The field is pointless. If a character's age is relevant it can be discussed in the article. AniMate^draw 17:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree the character's age should be removed from the infobox. Powergate92Talk 05:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support the clean up too. If it is relevant it should be in prose inside the article. --KrebMarkt 15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Me three. Or something. This looks like a pretty clear consensus to remove the age fields from the infoboxes to me. Why do we have one billion different character infoboxes, anyhow? --Conti|✉ 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There have been movements to consolidate infoboxes and some unnecessary ones have been eliminated (like every single TV show doesn't need its own), but in many cases there are genre-specific or show-specific differences that make sharing an infobox complicated. Still, there are more than a few out there that should be merged! — TAnthony^Talk 16:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TAnthony on the point of consolidation as well. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<---- I mostly agree with you here. I think that almost all characters' age is very ambiguous and almost impossible to pinpoint. I'm glad I ran into this discussion as I'm currently going through a situation regarding this issue. I think there may be a few cases where it's well documented but in most cases, it's way to ambiguous to tell. OlYeller^Talktome 14:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking; should we perhaps change it to an approximate age? Approximating won't work for the DOB though. I'm essentially thinking about a reader who has no concept of the show at all and wants to learn about a character. Without an frame of reference, it could leave some questions for the reader. OlYeller^Talktome 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that is really difficult. Sometimes characters age throughout a series. Rarely, I know, but in the Harry Potter series, all of the characters age, it wouldn't make sense to say that Harry is age 10-3?. BOVINEBOY2008 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the age field from Template:Office character box to get the dramaz started. Is anyone here an admin and can do Template:Infobox character? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya, that would be pretty difficult. I can't think of a good way at the moment but I feel like we need to figure out a way to give readers some idea of the age of the character. Maybe a range? A picture would be very helpful but obviously not easily acquired. I'll try to think of a way and come back. OlYeller^Talktome 15:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is a need to give the reader this information, we can do it through the actual article. Y'know, the part that's not in a shiny box. :) --Conti|✉ 15:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cute. I guess the I assumed the same rules should apply to the body as the infobox. If it's not a number that can be declared in an info box, how can we declare it in the body? I guess a longer description? OlYeller^Talktome 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely, age can be a significant factor in characterization and should definitely be noted in the prose. But it isn't always a piece of information that is needed immediately, which is what infoboxes are for: highlighting the most significant and prominent information. BOVINEBOY2008 17:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

<--- Sounds good to me. If anyone sees a discussion going on regarding this issue, let us know as I'm sure we can give some input. OlYeller^Talktome 17:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In most cases it makes the most sense to reference age-related facts in the text as they come up in the fictional work, because characters "age" over time and retcons and discrepancies occur. As with any information, to avoid OR we should present the facts and let the reader interpret them. Editors should not do "calculations" or "revisions" for the reader, which would be akin to an editor explaining the symbolism in a poem without a source (and let's face it, a lot of times coming up with a character's age is more convoluted than just reporting an age or birthdate stated by the author). This has been a huge issue in soap opera-related articles, where editors want to make sense of inconsistent information and recasts of children with teens, etc. With Harry Potter, it obviously makes sense to say, "fourteen-year-old Harry begins his first year at the mysterious Hogwarts in this book; Harry is 19 in this book when he falls into the volcano, etc. (assuming Rowling has stated the ages clearly, of course, I haven't read the books). In other cases we should use the facts we know and let the inconsistencies speak for themselves: "John is born onscreen in 1990 ... His 21st birthday in 2000 is disrupted by terrorists storming the Grand Hotel looking to kill him before he can ascend the throne."— TAnthony^Talk 19:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question, are we going to be removing just the age field, or does this also include the date of birth field? AniMate^draw 01:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably both. Maybe more like "Call sign" as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

One of my concerns with removing age from the infobox is that editors will start "making up for it" by putting the birth date at the very beginning of the lead...such as "[So and so] (born October 2, 1984) is a fictional character..." I feel that editors will either find some other way to add the ages of characters into the infobox, or do like it was before...add age to the very beginning of the lead as if these characters are real. I remember that a lot of soap opera character articles were like that when I first signed up here in 2007. Sure, I put the age of Bianca Montgomery in the lead, but that is without the in-universe formatting.

On a side note, TAnthony has very recently removed age from the soap opera infobox. I guess we will see how all this goes. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to state that exactly what I feared...has now started, and one day after I stated it would -- people finding other ways to add the age but not in an encyclopedic, or rather not in the best, way, as seen in this link. This will probably start to happen to a few prime time drama character articles that are using the soap opera character infobox as well, such as ones of the The O.C. (most of which are already in bad shape). This IP is doing this to other articles. But, for the record, he or she may be User:Nk3play2, as accused of being so by TAnthony.

Sigh, removing the age from the infobox is clearly not going to keep IPs and editors from playing with the age in other ways within these articles. Will it cut down on this "play"? That remains to be seen. Flyer22 (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Then remove it if it's irrelevant. Like, for Bianca I can kind of understand it's existence (though, I'm curious why it's all in the lead, as it isn't essential to understanding the character immediately) because it's a shake-up of the establish character's historical timeline. Most characters don't have the issue, and most characters don't really have an age. For instance, I don't need to know that Bart is 10 years old (or however old he is), but what I should know is that the television series has been on for 20 years and Bart has never aged beyond that of a 10 year old. It's just going to take time for this to become natural. Trivia sections were all the rage a few years ago, and we still have them popping up now, but most editors know that trivia sections should be removed and any relevant info needs to be sourced and organized appropriately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Bignole, from what I remember, Bianca's age was already in the lead of her article when I first started editing it. I simply left it in, though the way it was originally worded has been changed. I suppose Bianca's age seems relevant to me and others because of how her coming out at age 16 in 2000 was such a big deal and was heavily documented (ingrained into our minds)...and how her and her siblings' ages have affected Erica Kane's age. I understand what you are saying, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bignole, I am not sure when the age got added to the lead, and am not interested in going back through things to find out. As seen in this link (displayed on the talk page), some time before I started editing the article, the age was in the Biography section rather than the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

An infobox has to contain information like the date of birth or age and death date. It's an infobox! Not only that, age is important. It gives an idea. Date of birth shows when the character was born. Date of death show's when the character dies! How can that be removed? People are just gonna start putting it anywhere.--Leslie Roak (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:WAF, the infobox should contain only what is necessary to understand the character. Fictional characters do not die and are not "born". SOAPs withstanding. They are fictional, they do not have birthdays and death day, because they are not real. Fictional characters don't have have "last" appearances, because that describes a finite end to something that seemingly has no end because it is fictional. Otherwise, Boba Fett would have a "last appearance" of Return of the Jedi, when in fact he has been translated into additional media outside of that film series. All fiction must be approached from a real world perspective, not an in-universe perspective.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This age junk is largely trivia and/or original research that skates by because it is more or less unnoticed in the infobox by those who actually understand policy. Forcing it out into the open in the articles will help its removal, or conversion to a more appropriate form. People will always try to add trivia: our job is to vigilantly remove it, and discourage it by eliminating "opportunities" like these fields, not just roll over because "they're going to do it anyway." As I've stated in various articles, certain "age-related" info may be appropriate within the text of an article, but not in the way it is presented in many soap articles. Roak, if you can't work a birthdate into the text of an article and have it seem notable, then it doesn't belong in an infobox either. Some examples of how it should be done:

• Yes: "Erica is a selfish and headstrong 15-year-old when All My Children begins in 1970 ... in 1992 it is revealed that Erica had been raped at 14, a memory she represses until 16-year-old Kendall Hart, the product of the rape, appears in 1993. Viewer reaction to the discrepancy created by Erica having a 16-year-old daughter as the product of a 24-year-old rape prompted the series to immediately adjust Kendall's age to 23 ... Kendall leaves town in 1995 and returns in 2002 portrayed by a new actress, and Kendall's birth year was revised to 1976."
• No: "When All My Children debuted in 1970, Erica was 15 years old, putting her birth year at 1955. In 1993, Erica's 16-year-old daughter Kendall was said to have been conceived from a rape when she was 14; since the rape had occurred 24 years earlier, this was immediately corrected by Kendall being aged to 23. In 2002, Kendall's birth year was established as 1976, putting Erica's birth year at 1962."

• Yes: "Adam Wilson is the son of longrunning lead character Victor Newman (Eric Braeden) and Hope Wilson (Signy Coleman), born onscreen in April 1995 ... Originally portrayed by child actors until 2002, the character was aged to an adult in 2008 with the casting of Chris Engen."
• No: "Adam Wilson is born onscreen in April 1995 ... in 2008 the character is SORASED to 27, making his birthdate 1981."

Assuming for the moment that this info is notable within the context of the related articles, I think it's clear that the "Yes" examples present the facts from a real-world perspective as revealed on the series, letting the reader make sense of any discrepancies rather than editors doing "calculations" or interpretation (which is original research). The "No" examples are in the typical OR approach favored by the soap-obsessed IPs and amateurs that plague us, where they try to make sense of disparate facts and present the information in an in-universe style.— TAnthony^Talk 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually do not consider these calculations to be original research...but rather as common sense. Such as if a character is born within the series one year and is then aged to 20 the next year and is said to be following our real world timeline, well, it is ludicrous to continue to state that character as having been born just one year earlier. But this just shows how silly trying to go by daytime soap opera ages often is, which is why I have been for TAnthony's removal of the age field since the day I stated such on his talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Flyer and I have discussed this at length, but for the benefit of this discussion I will say for all following it that we should be stating the facts and let the reader interpret and apply their own common sense rather than have editors provide conclusions. The example of a character being born in 1995 and suddenly aged to 20 in 1996 is a perfect one, because it vividly illustrates how fiction cannot be held up to the same restrictions as reality, and therefore qualities like age cannot necessarily be quantified the way we do in real life. This is why this type of information should be worded/incorporated as I have above, rather than from the somewhat in-universe standpoint of "Joe was born in 1995 but in 1996 it was established that he was born in 1986." We should not be writing about characters as if they are real people, but rather subtly reminding the readers that they are fictional constructs by using a real-world perspective: "The character was turned into a frog," "the writers aged the child character to an adult," "the series cast a Caucasian woman in the role previously portrayed by a biracial actress."— TAnthony^Talk 02:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the removal for soap characters. There was also a big confussion if a new day in real life means a new day in a soap as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Ace Young

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Ace Young/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Although the article does not have a banner to indicate that it is part of this project, I am notifying you because I thought the article may be of interest to project members. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Two episodes lists are listed at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates

User:Nergaal has nominated List of Teen Titans episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

I have nominated List of Desperate Housewives episodes for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

CITV

Hey guys, I have started making improvements and added a lead to List of programmes broadcast by CITV. I have added a table at the top of the article with the intention of creating a sortable list of programmes. I wanted to see if anyone would be willing to help by finding more sources for the run-dates of programmes, adding missing shows to the list and putting the existing shows into the table. Please let me know here if you are willing to help, or start straight away on the list. Does anyone know where to find a complete list of programmes broadcast by CITV? Cheers. 03md 12:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Before continuing you may want to look at the current discussion at WP:NOT regarding the whole television schedule/program list thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the summary of a Reality TV programme count as a work of fiction...

...and therefore not need to be sourced per WP:MOSTV#Plot section? We're currently debating whether the "Summary" and "Nominations table" sections of Big Brother 2009 (UK) need sourcing per the aforementioned policy. Please join in with the discussion here. Thanks, DJ 21:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

Not a work of fiction, but it is a plot. So long as it is purely a recount of the episode and does not add original research, I don't see why they would need sources. The episodes themselves are the sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment Request

I hope that it is okay to post this here. I'd like Monsters Inside Me to be assessed. Joe Chill (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Pinkadelica^♣ 04:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:CharR to list entry discussion

In a current TfD for Template:R from character, the CharR template has come under discussion as to the appropriateness of its name and whether the two should be merged, along with possibly renaming the similar Template:FictR to list entry and Template:ER to list entry templates. As these templates were created per consensus from a discussion among the Television, Anime/manga, and Video game projects while dealing with many character to list merges, I am notifying the three projects so they can add any input desired at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24#Template:R from character -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Teen drama

I've restructured the Teen drama article sections and would like to know your opinion. Also, the article is completely unsourced, so if anyone could add even one reference it would be a great improvement ;) Cheers, --Cattus ^talk 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There you go, I added a ref. The structure looks fine, although the content aint so good. I'd probably lose the "Popular" in the "Popular types of teen dramas". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree, the "popular" isn't necessary, I'll remove it.--Cattus ^talk 15:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Is TuVision still broadcasting?

TuVision is one of those very small TV networks that have popped up during the last 10 years. I am getting conflicting infomation on whether it's still broadcasting. If anybody could do some research, that would be great (I'd do it myself, but my google skills ar VERY weak, and I've always had trouble finding out what is and what isn't still around). Retro Agnostic (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of game operas on American television

Hi, the above article is one of the oldest articles tagged as unreferenced we have. I have been searching for references but have found only trivial mentions of the term Game opera and seems non-notable. It would appear to me that the list is better covered at List of reality television programs#Reality game shows/Reality "Playoffs" and the Game opera article is already covered at Reality television#Elimination/Game shows. However, I know hardly anything about this subject area and would appreciate any comments or advice from the members here. If anyone could add sources that would be great but otherwise, should I seek to merge, redirect, delete or leave well alone? regards ascidian | talk-to-me 21:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Four "Seasons of" featured topics up for removal

The Seasons of Bleach nom has been going for a while, and looks like it might be resolved, but I have just nominated Seasons of 30 Rock, Seasons of The Office (US TV series) and Seasons of Lost for removal, because none of them got their latest seasons to FL in the required time. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I'm requesting for opinions over at Talk:Justice League (Smallville)#Costume image regarding the fair use of an image to illustrate the differences between Smallville's costumes and the comic versions. Please see that discussion for details.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi everyone! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. Being that this project is pretty active in the FLC/FLRC process, it was suggested that some editors here may wish to run in this election, or at least vote in it (voting starts on Tuesday). You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Season ratings

Anyone know where I can find refs for Supernatural_(TV_series)#Ratings? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is season 1, season 3, and season 4. The season 2 link I had is a register link, but I think if you backtrack on the ABC Medianet to that time frame for season 2 you should find it there as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I hope they help.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what the "NO/OF VIEWR VIEWR RANK | T/C 2+ 2+" stuff means here? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first column, but the second column is number of viewers (000), so 28820 corresponds to 28,820,000 or 28.82 million viewers. And the third column is the rating which represents the percentage of all television households tuned into a program. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but I'm sure it's irrelevant to the article. It's probably something that we'd have to spend time explaining beforehand. It's one of the reasons why I just stick with those basic viewership numbers, otherwise you have to explain what 25/39 means and all that other stuff. Most of it is over my head, let alone probably over the average readers' understanding. For Supernatural, it's the middle column and the ranking that's really important. So, for season 1, it's the 2.74 million.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out what all the info means, and 2+ means viewers 2 years old and older. It's usually not mentioned, I guess. I can't figure out the T/C number, but it doesn't seem important. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Three TfDs

Template:Infobox Hercaverse and Xenaverse character, Template:Infobox He-Man/She-Ra character, and the newly created Template:Infobox fictional artifact have been nominated for deletion. As all three are most heavily employed on Television-related articles, giving project notification. Discussion on all three at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 13. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What counts as a character?

I'm currently working on the article Supernatural (TV series), and I trying to weed out the recurring elements section. One of them is about the car used on the series, and my question is whether the car can be counted as a character? Many fans consider it to be the third character of the series (and I have found some sources on that), so is it acceptable to include it on a list of characters page? Ophois (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the car in a "list of characters" page or section, but if there are reliable sources about the car it then it should be noted, either in one of the brothers' section, or the dad's section given that I believe it was his car first. The car is clearly an important element to the show, but it's not a "character". KITT from Knight Rider would be a character, and unless the Impala is something along those lines, then it's not a real character.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it's Deans car. Put the stuff in his article or section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request opinions

I'm requesting additional opinions over at Talk:Chloe Sullivan#Chloe's Middle Name, where another editor and myself are in disagreement over the inclusion of this fictional character's middle name. The other editor is over the opinion that the middle name is important in adding realistic qualities to the character, while I believe that it's a trivial piece of information (mainly because it was only ever mentioned once, in season seven).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

RabbitEars article under developement

Just to let everyone here know, I've been developing an article about RabbitEars (and the [http:\\www.rabbitears.info website]) at User:TripEricson/READS Ranks all morning. Additional input and collaboration would be appreciated.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

International broadcasting section?

Is there any sort of guideline as to whether or not articles should have a section about international release? In looking at the FA-class articles, it seems that there is no set rule. The Lost series article has pretty much nothing, and the individual seasons have information on when they premiered in the US and Canada. And List of Firefly episodes has a really gross list on the bottom that needs to be cleaned up. I'm only asking because we started a discussion on Talk:Dollhouse (TV series) about it, and getting a little more consensus would be helpful. So has this ever been discussed elsewhere? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's been discussed or not, but generally it's a matter of whether the info is available and what kind of info it is. To be honest, we don't need a list of international television channels for which a show airs on. It would become an indiscriminate list. That said, if there is something special about its airing somewhere, then that should be noted. But, I don't think that just listing all of the places it airs is very helpful. Even WP:FILM limits film articles to just major releases in major-English speaking countries (even that's just a simple listing in the infobox itself). IMO, unless we have prose information about what a show does in other countries, I don't believe it is necessary (or really holds much value) to just list channels it appears on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as such. The argument given over there was "I find it useful," which violates WP:NOT. But I agree with the indiscriminate list thing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Navigation boxes

(redact in italics) During a recent discussion (see here), it was suggested that we should talk about the inclusion of actors in the TV series navigation boxes at the bottom of TV show articles across the entire WikiProject. First, there is a clear inconsistency in the inclusion of actors in a nav box.
Have it:
{{House}}, {{CSI: Crime Scene Investigation}}, {{30 Rock}}, {{Friends}}, {{Family Guy}}
Don't Have it:
{{OCnavigation}}, {{The Simpsons}}, {{LostNav}}, {{Buffynav}}
Second, the question becomes should they even be there in the first place? With a quick inspection, you'll note that for just about every actor listed there is also an article for their character. Thus, it becomes a little redundant to include a link to both the character's article and the actor's article when one link will easily suffice. A lot of TV series also have character lists, that have everyone listed. Then you have something like {{The Simpsons}}, which doesn't list the cast, or any individual that works on the show, but provides a link to a page that lists them all (which is probably a better option). The question then becomes, what is the stopping point? {{Firefly}} lists casts and crew, then again, so does the main page for that show. Why don't we list the music composer(s), band that provides the theme music to a show, or the co-producers, the directors of the episodes, or the writers? So, should these types of things be included, and if so/not should we make note of this at WP:MOSTV?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I find that it becomes hard to pick and choose which actors should be included and it also seems a bit unnecessary when, like you said, they are linked from the character articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though I do not use them often, I view navigation boxes as very helpful...when it comes to moving from one character article to the next. But I am not seeing why we should link to both the character's article and the actor's article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with Flyer22. If someone wanted to know about a certain actor from the series, they would probably go to the article about the character first. The immediate navigation makes more sense. BOVINEBOY2008 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So where are we on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to suggest including only characters when such articles exist, but when only a list of characters page exists, and no individual character articles, I don't see why putting top-billed actors' names hurts anything. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They're already listed on the character list page, and the main page for the series. Given that those pages would have more information regarding their characters than the actors page, it would seem more logical to send them to the information then away from it. Templates that are just for actors in a series typically get deleted, because there is not a reason to put this template on each of their pages because of some indirect connection. It would seem like we are trying to side step that consensus by including them in a larger template that probably doesn't belong on the actor's page either (otherwise, you'd have to include a template for everything they ever starred in and with some actors that would be quite a lot). So, what would the point of including them in the template be, if the template itself really wouldn't have a home on each actor's page? If you clicked on Actor A, you'd have to backtrack till you got to a page with the template just to click on Actor D.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, but I'm not sure it's something we need a rule on. It doesn't cause problems like an "age" field in a character infobox (I don't think). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it kind of does cause problems, just not of the in-universe variety. Like I said, if these types of templates are not allowed on their own (because linking actors on other actors pages because of a loose association isn't something that is apparently accepted given the deletion of that actors template), then circumventing the consensus is a problem. I mean, if we cannot put the templates on the actor pages, then the section serves no actual purpose - and given that we just deleted this template it begs the assume that a more generalized template wouldn't be accepted on the actor pages either. Thus, it's probably something we should note if editors are going to start taking these actor templates to TfD (which i think is already done), because people are going to be like, "where else can we put the names". But if the names are basically going to serve no purpose, because the template itself won't be allowed on actor pages, then we should probably say "Actors should not be listed in a TV series nav box, for this reason...."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're not going to put that kind of template on the actors pages. If templates should only include articles that can have the template, then remove the actors. But, is that a rule, that templates should only link to pages that include them? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If the template is a navigation box, then yes, they should be. That is the whole point of navigation boxes, to provide quick navigation between articles of similar subjects. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the point of this discussion. We had a template that was just for the actors, but that consensus there was that there was only a loose association between the actors and as such there shouldn't be a template on their pages (I challenge the "consensus" to merge to the Smallville template because only two people actually suggested it in the first place). The question is, if the consensus at TfD is that we shouldn't have the actor box then it would seem like we are sneaking around that concept by including them in a TV series box. The reason being, say we have an actor who starred in 3 or 4 TV series, and in several films. If we say that actors should be listed on the TV series box, and have the box in their article then you're talking about bombarding an article with multiple nav boxes - most of which are not necessary. Navs are for linking similar subjects, not actors that worked on the same show. If I'm on William Peterson's page, there shouldn't be a nav box pointing me to Lawrence Fishburne's page, simply because the two worked on CSI. They have no real connection to each other beyond simply appearing on the same TV show together. Their careers are not actually connected. Otherwise, it opens the door to other things. If I need to know what actor was in a show, then I should know what directors have worked on a show and who the writing staff is that writes the episodes (since most shows that go behind two seasons have a standard writing staff). These people are just as important as the actors.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are we talking about a navbox on Gil Grissom linking to Fishburne, or a navbox on William Petersen linking to Fishburne? The latter obviously just won't work. The former may be OK, or it may be frowned upon per BOVINEBOY above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nav on Peterson to Fishburne. Recently, the nav boxes that did this were deleted. My assumption here is, if they were deleted then putting the actors on a generalized template (i.e. one for the show), and then putting the template on the actors' pages would be both circumventing the decision to delete the nav box dedicated solely to the actors and provide an irrelevant nav box to a page that has a loose association to the topic. Peterson was on CSI, this is true and that's a connection. But his career and bio is not connected in anyway to Lawrence Fishburne, who took over CSI after he left. As such, a TV template on the actors page would be both unnecessary, and probably unwanted by the same people that think a nav box just for the actors is unwanted.

On the other hand, let's say that we want that connection, no matter how small to be on his page, so we put the nav box there. Then any TV show they starred in would be listed at the bottom of their page. For some of these long term TV career actors that can be quite a few shows. Or it could extend into the film. I've already seen a few actor pages that have film nav boxes that lists the entire cast of the film. If we did that for every film, we'd have dozens of nav boxes on actor pages.

My opinion is that the actors are all listed on the main page of their shows, and if there is a character list/article they will be listed there as well. Given that those items are mandatory on a nav box, the actors are thus covered enough and don't need a dozen nav boxes all vaguely related to their overall careers covering their pages. If we think that the nav boxes for a TV show don't really belong on the actor's page, then there is no real reason to have them in the nav box given that you can find their names are probably any other related page to the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week. Where exactly do we sit on this?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't ever put show navboxes on actor pages, IMHO. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Which would lead back to the "actors probably shouldn't be on the show nav boxes to begin with" theory.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, where I stand on that is that I have no strong feelings. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. I'm merely pointing out the logical turn. I agree, that show navs have no place on individual actor pages, as such there isn't a reason to have the actors on the navs since the actors really shouldn't have the box on their pages. If there is no reason to navigate to Actor Y from Actor Z's page, because their connection is miniscule, then listing them outright has no real utility.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Just 2¢ from the peanut gallery... but looking at the above it seems that:

• Consensus at TfD is "No" for actor only navboxes. It sounds like the "loose/tenuous" connection was used but it's also a form of clutter avoidance.
• Merging the actors into the series 'box is side-stepping the consensus since it doesn't address the core issues. Worse, it can create a usability issue within the navbox, especially if producers, directors, writers, etc start creeping in.
• Looking at WP:NAV, the idea of "one way" links - either the 'box taking you to an article that doesn't have the 'box or the 'box being placed on an article that isn't within the 'box - is contrary to the purposes of the navbox.

Bottom line, it seems a good step to add a line to the TVMoS section on navboxes that highlights what shouldn't be there - at the least the actors - and a link to WP:NAV.

Side question though... has this been brought up at WP:FILM? It sounds like something that just as likely happens there. - J Greb (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been brought up to my knowledge, at least not lately. I've seen production people (actors, directors, etc.) creep into film nav boxes every once in a while, but it's usually on newly created nav boxes and often get removed when the box starts appearing in more pages. Sometimes they're there for awhile, and I know WP:MOSFILMS doesn't address it. If it's the consensus, then I'm all for adding a note about nav boxes to the WP:MOSTV page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So, should we make a note on WP:MOSTV with regard to TV nav boxes? If so, how should we word it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say "yes". - J Greb (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume we can put it under "WP:MOSTV#Navbox". Here is a basic write-up, which we can adjust because I'm still not sure what we're all in agreement with exactly.

The standard navbox for television articles is the {{Navbox}} template. See the template's article for instructions on creating a navbox. When deciding what articles to include in your navigation box, it is best to begin with the primary article and expand out to the articles most relevant to the subject. For example, a template for The Simpsons would begin with its main article, then include any episode related articles, followed by any character related articles, so forth and so on. While a navigation box might include a page for the List of writers of The Simpsons, it would not include a link to every writers individual page. The same is true for other production staff, which include directors, producers, or actors. Given that such a navigation box would not be relevant to these individuals' articles, they should not typically be included as the navigation box would provide a one-way link to the article.

This is just a rough draft, and we can tweak it accordingly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What I don't understand about this discussion is how these argument relate to, say, awards navboxes or office navboxes. People on them can be centuries apart. Holding the same academic office (in 19th and 21st centuries) or receiving the same award (in 1901 and 2008) seems to be a much looser connection than starring in the same series.
Navboxes exist to make browsing through articles, related to a particular subject, easier. Reading about the cast's background, or looking for more series starring them, is what I do very often, and navboxes do help.
Now, I understand there is a problem of deciding who is to be on the navbox. But then, it's no different to diving the characters into main and minor, and this is done all the time. Just a question of consensus.
Primaler (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, speaking of "if we place a navbox on every series to the actors pages, for some actors the navboxes would be way too many" argument. For some reason, this doesn't seem to bother anyone in case of Winston Churchill. "Political offices" are two screens long! No actor will have half as many collapsed navboxes. But even if he did, I can't see the problem; filmography in the very same article would be twice as long. Navboxes are in the end of the article, anyway. Primaler (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox practices.

Okay, so I was told to come here to bring something up. I will, before an edit war escalates. On The Cleveland Show we seem to be having a problem. It seems the Template:Infobox Television page says for number of seasons and episodes to, and I quote:

“ The number of seasons (non-UK) or series (UK) produced. ”

And, for the number aired it specifically states, and I quote:

“ The number of episodes produced (a reliable source is required if greater than the number aired). ”

Now, please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I see nothing that states these "rules" are only for inclusion on shows that have not aired all of their episodes such as Firefly (TV series). Perhaps I am over-looking something, but, according to what is stated, if, in the case of TCS, there are two seasons with a total of 35 produced episodes, we should be able to include them. We have sources, I personally don't see the problem. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the case of TCS, this isn't an instance where a show was produced and the studio didn't broadcast all of the episodes. This is a case of where the show just hasn't premiered yet. As such, the rule we typically follow is the "update when it happens". Meaning, when season 1 premieres you'll put "1" for "Season" and 1 for "Episodes". Also, that source you have says that the studio plans to produce a total of 35 episodes, not that they already have. We certainly wouldn't put numbers up for proposed episodes that haven't even been produced yet (let alone aired on TV).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

But obviously the source is a little older, the show begins airing in less then a week. There are already three episodes scheduled to air. And if it is confirmed by a reliable source, I do not understand why it can't be added. And if not, then I personally feel the infobox template should be changed to such. We have confirmation of 2 seasons and 35 episodes (for now). Obviously if things change we can fix it then, but why (re)move reliably sourced content? --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And actually, to play "Devil's Advocate" for a moment, we shouldn't include any 'upcoming' episode details for shows then, if we're going to go by the 'wait when it happens' approach. Believe me, I hate when other and new editors come in and say things like that. It upsets me as that's too general and not how things should be done on Wikipedia. But, I personally feel, that to add the episodes and seasons, is not a violation. Even WP:CRYSTAL states in their first rule:

“ Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ”

Now, granted, this isn't as important as the Olympics or anything, but if they've ordered two seasons before the first episode even airs, to me, thats "almost certain to take place". Just my personal feelings. --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We usually just go by what's been aired. It's a more useful number to our readers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

2¢ - The refes that are currently in the article are of the "Fox has ordered..." type. There is no statement that in them as to the exact number of episode MacFarlane's company has completed to date. "Produced" is a pretty specific word, otherwise it would be "number of seasons/serials ordered" and "number of episodes ordered". Even that would have problems as per King of the Hill where the production company made additional, unordered, episodes on spec.

As for CBing... the information is included within the article in the tone of what Fox ordered. Having little or no information from MacFarlane makes it hard to know if the initial 13 episodes are in the can, much less the 9 to round out the "1st seasons" or the 13 for the "2nd". Wanting to use what is currently there to place it in the infobox is a bit of CBing and a bit of WP:SYNTH. - J Greb (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

List of characters in Phineas and Ferb

This article is heavily in need of help. Not only is it un-sourced and messy, but people keep editing things that need to be reverted immediately such as:

• Break templates by messing with something
• Link to "Main article" but they just redirect back to the same section.
• Change the characters age. (I have no idea what their real age is, so I dont know who to revert.)

It would help if your project would watch this page. It had no project boxes on the talkpage, so I added them as Start-class and low-importance. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You might tell User:SuperFlash101. They work on PnF articles a lot. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

He-man and She-Ra mergers

I dunno if this is the right forum since it has been a cartoon but I believe Princess Adora and She-Ra should be merged the same with He-Man and Prince Adam its like Bruce Wayne and Batman having separate articles even though they are the same person.

Dwanyewest (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Clark Kent and Superman have separate pages. That said, I doubt that She-Ra/Princess Adora and He-Man/Prince Adam have such notability within their individual personas that they require separate articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, they do not need separate articles at all. Same character, just one is an alter ego. I'd merge She-Ra to Princess Adora and He-Man to Prince Adam. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If these mergers do take place Prince Adam's references seems to dead and or he-man.org links Dwanyewest (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

yeah, all of them need some serious cleaning. I tried once to work with some of them, but got fed-up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would merge the prince and princess articles to the He and She articles, and not the other way around. Those are more common names. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree on that direction of merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, the actual merge discussion is here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I acutally thought from the topic title that you wanted to merge She-Ra into He-man apart form the crossover I would have found it hard to understand merging like that. But now i read the comment I understand and I agree merge the characters into the show :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Mattycollector.com considered a good source of information?

I really feel alot of the characters in Masters of the Universe need a major overhaul such as Stratos ,He-Ro and many others should allowing myself to use Mattycollector.com be permissable as a credible source of information. [7] [8]

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What is your intention on using the source? Are you using it to cite that an action figure exists, or are you using it to cite something else? In general, it's probably ok as a verification tool that an action figure exists, but not much more.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would say its RS only for the existence of the figures as a retailer, but that's about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Overenthusiastic editor vowing to revert any edits to a TV page

Seems a Wikipedian is abit too overenthusiastic about Conan O'Brien and information about his show. How should this "situation" be handled? I'm kinda at a loss if this is a joke or serious.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Take him at face value, Point him to WP:OWN and WP:MOS-TV (and no, every Sketch should not be be listed - per WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE. (and its Just Plain Silly). Looking at the list further, I'd honestly say it should go to AfD. I can't see any notability value in that list, and any sourced bits can go to the main article if they are actually relevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Last AfD was in May 2008.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First season production vs TV series Production

I've been reviewing some Season one lists recently like Desperate Housewives (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1) and it has come to my attention the difficulty of the distinction between a Season production and a TV series production, since a season is part of a TV series. How should this be handled? For example, should Supernatural (season 1) include all the information in Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production since it's mostly about the first season and the conception of the first season of the TV series?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WT:TV be a better place to ask this? I'm sure some editors here could help, but discussion should take place there. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Diaa, in theory there will probably be some overlay between a season (or even episode) production and the main series production. That said, each page should not be a mirror of the other. For example (and I know this is a season "article" and not a "list", but the idea is the same), Smallville (season 1) shares some info with Pilot (Smallville), Tempest (Smallville), and Smallville. But, if you look, the bulk is on the season page, and what is specific to the series as a whole is on the main page, and what is specific to the pilot and the season 1 finale are on those respective pages alone. You have to read the info and see if it is pertaining more to the show as a whole, or just that specific season. Based on what I see at Supernatural, I think think "season" production section is being fluffed with production info that encompasses the show as a whole. As such, it should probably be cut where necessary.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to do a destinction actually. Applying to Supernatural_(TV_series)#Production, conception and creation deals with the first season and the Series as a whole. Should this be summarized and moved to the season article/list? The second paragraph of Mythology is only about the first season is this supposed to be moved over there? Everything between Writing and Mythology is about the First season and the Series as a whole. Should this also be moved over there? This is a big issue of Pilots-Seasons-TV Shows and some guideline or How to should exist....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We have WP:MOSTV, but it doesn't get that specific, because it isn't supposed to. The suggestion would be that that the main page probably needs some major reworking. Anything that's overly specific to just one season should be moved to that season page. If it's something that is really just a series long thing, then it should be on the main page. It may take some time to reorganize the information to the relevant pages/sections. For instance, the entire first paragraph in the production section of the season page should probably be move (or removed) to the main page for the series. Unless these people change every season, this is information that should be on the main. It shouldn't be repeated on every single season page. The last paragraph is original research (personal observation by an editor) and should be removed. Everything else seems fine where it is. If the main page duplicates those middle paragraphs, then they need to be either trimmed down in detail on the main page, or removed altogether.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So if something influences the whole TV series it should only be in the main page and something that is only specific to the season should only be in the season. Like the change from self enclosed to normal episodes in the season. Such information should be in both right...? This is very hard... I'll see what I can do... Thanks--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Use your best judgment, and I'm sure you'll clean it up nicely. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Please make article structure consistent in episode lists

According to MOS:TV, the list of episodes should come before information about the release, production, reception etc. In practice however, most TV lists, even featured ones, have this order switched around. Can we make this consistent by a) fixing the lists or b) changing MOS:TV? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific section? I'm not seeing that anywhere in the MoS, as the episode lists don't have release, production, etc except a few of the season lists with a lot of real-world info? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article structure section, which points the plot (could be list of episodes) before the other body paragraphs. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Supernatural (season 1)/archive1 for a discussion about this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, for the main television series article, and for individual episode articles, as per all the GA/FA articles. I don't think that needs to be switched because of the episode lists, which is a different animal and shouldn't really be referring to that part at all. The opening sentence and header of that needs correcting, as ep lists and season lists should be using the "List of ..." structure section. If needed, the latter section should be expanded to note that information order for optional sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that the season lists need to be changed. As I stated in the discussion about Supernatural, it makes no sense for the plot information to come last. Plot is supposed to provide context for the real world commentary, and if it comes last it cannot do that. Most real world commentary will discuss an episode, but if you don't have any idea what happens in said episode then you have no context. You can still choose to skip the plot section if you wish, but organizationally it makes sense for that to come first. Plus, these are lists about the episodes (whether it's a List of episodes or a season page, it's about the episodes) and as such, your primary subject should be explained immediately.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we may just want to put some concrete language in about the order of sections for the MOS. That way there isn't any confusion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Heat

The article about Tropical Heat devotes an insanely amount of space to the show's purported popularity in Serbia, but doesn't offer any actual content on the show itself. That, and the comic scan might be a copyvio.--87.164.63.104 (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Masters of the Universe needs a major over haul

I feel that the whole Masters of the Universe articles need redoing for an example I asked earlier if Mattycollector.com was a legitimate resource for references but if it is not considered legitimate maybe it should be removed as it being used on the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_the_Universe#Masters_of_the_Universe_Classics_2008-. Also the other problem I have is I feel there are too many article relating to Masters of the Universe with no verification of its information and lots of original research the other articles like Keldor have dead articles from He-man.org and my final point I feel Masters of the Universe should have a wikiproject like GI Joe WikiProject G.I. Joe its just as important as GI Joe or should it be moved to Media Franchises.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot I feel some character articles should deleted for lack of information and lack verification of importance such as Optikk and Karatti and a few others.

Dwanyewest (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Galaxy Rangers needs sorting out

The whole article needs sorting out but my main concern is List of characters in The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers and I believe that Zachary Foxx , Niko and Walter "Doc" Hartford should be merged.

And my final bugbear is Supertroopers (The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers) 3 years and not being sorted I feel this should be merged too.

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the criteria for TV character articles

What is the criteria for TV character articles getting their own article the reason I ask this is there seems to be a glut of poorly written and ill defined character articles such as Lizorr and Kayo (He-Man).

Dwanyewest (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's contested what the criteria is. Look at WP:NOTE for one of the most common criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See the WP:GNG. All articles most assert notability, and that's defined by the GNG on even the most basic level. If you satisfy that then the article is generally fine (unless it's agreed upon in a talk page discussion to merge it somewhere else - that's a different discussion).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

A recent comment at an FAC got me to thinking that we should probably create a section at WP:MOSTV that lists reliable sources that can be used for articles. Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, we'd have to be able to explain why the source meets the criteria and in what capacity. Meaning, a website might be reliable enough to provide critical reception, but not reliable enough for general production information because of how it ascertains its news. Or, a website might generally be considered unreliable, unless it can be determined that the source conducted their own first hand interview, and that was where the information came from. I think working to craft this section in the MOS might help us all in future FACs so that we can easily justify any challenged references.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea. Films and anime/manga both have similar lists (along with "resource libraries" to see which members have some offline resources). As an editor, I've found them immensely useful, not only for confirming a source is reliable, but for finding more to search. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the first thing we should do is probably just start searching and listing out all the common sources we see in TV articles. After we create our list, then we can start to go through one-by-one to see if we can find sources that support some form of reliability/notability of the ones we're trying to use.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Put a link here. I'd like to watchlist it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we just stick it in someone's sandbox (User:Bignole/Reliable sources) until it's finished?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just create a project subpage? I don't think it's controversial, is it? On the other hand, if you're about to go to town, and want to do it in your userspace, go for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It makes no nevermind to me. I just don't know how long it will take (I can't do it all myself, because frankly I don't work on enough TV-related pages to have a good enough idea of what sources are typically used--whether they are reliable or not).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(redent) This may need to be deleted, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Reliable sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone should watchlist it. I've broken the list into 3 categoes--"Supposedly reliable", "Supposedly unreliable" and "Final outcome"--I've always added a general discussion section where we can talk about their sources in general. For the "Final Outcome" I've copied the table used by the Film community so that we can update it with sources that we've deemed to be reliable based on the evidence we find. We can restructure the table later to include links to the evidence so that it'll always be present if questioned.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we have the discussion on the page or move it to the talk page? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes no difference. If the subpage stays then we can move it all to the talk page as an archive. If it doesn't, then really the main page is the talk page in some respects because we'd just end up moving everything anyway. If you feel more comfortable having it on the literal "talk" page then that's cool.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reunion?

I cant find any article about reunion shows. I was watching curb and wanted to know more about them, and what shows have done them. But I couldn't find any article on wikipedia on it. Is it hidden somewhere? Or is it not there at all? Don't you think there should be one?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty: The Reunion - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a reunion. I'm looking for reunion shows in general.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have one. If you can do some research and find good sources, I think we should have an article on the phenomenon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [9]. --78.111.169.38 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment request

Could someone assess and suggest improvements to Derren Brown: The Events? Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 10:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on external link

There is a discussion at Talk:Smallville (season 4)#Jes Battis Articles, which actually concerns season pages for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The question is whether This is the link in question, which is an analysis of the homosexual subtext within Smallville's first five seasons. The article is from Jump Cut, which is a journal that's been around for 35 years, with all articles submitted being reviewed and decided upon by their own select editors--which is primarily college professors. I would like some input on this, because the only counter arguments that have been given to me is that link is WP:SPAM, or unreliable. It's clearly not spam, and no one can seem to point me out the specific criteria that is fails that would make it unreliable. Or that the article makes Wikipedia look like an idiot for promoting Battis's philosophy. I'm looking for stronger opinions on either side, so that a definitive answer can be ascertained.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Johnny Test characters

Just like for everyone here to know, that I created this page. Sarujo (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for expert attention: List of challenges in Takeshi's Castle

List of challenges in Takeshi's Castle (talk).

The article is completely un-sourced, and as a result vandalism keeps being added which is often hard to distinguish from the real material (especially given that the real material is particularly "wacko" in this TV show). The article needs to be sourced and individual statements cited with inline citations. Careful attention needs to be paid to the existing contents, and any claims that can't be verified must be removed as potential vandalism. The article needs to be made more encyclopedic by adding an introductory paragraph that puts the article in context and asserts notability. A nice, gentle, introductory job for a budding wikipedian. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mass Merger of Masters of the Universe articles and lack of references

Many of the Masters of the Universe articles need mass deletion, mergers or complete rewrite. Most of the Character articles have no third person sources that are reliable. I

Articles needing to be merged I posted a articles to

Characters like Scare Glow I believe should be merged to List of Masters of the Universe characters amongst a few others I suggested.

Teela's Quest should be merged to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe episodes amongst a few others I suggested.

Snake Face should be merged with Snake Men article amongst a few others I suggested.

Blade (Masters of the Universe) should be merged into Masters of the Universe (film)

List of Masters of the Universe vehicles needs to be deleted it fails general notability guidelines WP:GNG

The final query I have are the Masters of the Universe even using the correct character inbox for characters?

Dwanyewest (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

IMDB in external links

more than once I've seen links to the IMDB profiles of shows and actors deleted with explanations like this:
>> imdb is classed as unrealible see many dicussion at wp:rs archive
on the other hand, imdb links still are on hundreds of thousands of pages
{{imdb}} is not deprecated, nor are there any warnings about its use
I can't find any definite consensus or policy on the subject
so can I add imdb profiles or can't I? any links would be highly appreciated
Primaler (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are any links of the sort, but IMDb has only been denied as a source, not as an external link. It is widely accepted that IMDb generally offers a wide array of information that you would not normally find on Wikipedia. As such, it is acceptable to place it in the EL section of articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look what I've found: WP:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines#External links
quote: "Links to the Official Website, TV.com, or IMDb profile pages should go in the infobox and this section of the article"
Case solved.
Primaler (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No... the sited section does not mention infoboxes, just that "Links to the Official Website, TV.com, or IMDb profile pages should go in the external links section of the article."

And IIRC, TV.com IMDb were specifically pulled out of the infobox templates as inappropriate to be included any where but the EL section of the article. - J Greb (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It has just been edited out by Bignole. Primaler (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because, if you look at the "Infobox" section we left a message awhile ago that IMDb was deprecated from the infobox. The EL section was just not updated. Either way, they are still acceptable in the EL section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept that imbd should maybe used for actors etc but there tv informaiton is very poor and tv.com well it even worse, so if sometihng is different here to tv.com peopel will say that it should be the same so why list them at all? i was told because there unrealible as source they should not be used as external links--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 14:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

They carry information we don't. For one, we don't carry a list of all the producers, editors, sound editors, etc. Why, because it's trivial to the type of info we do talk about. Regardless, to be comprehensive we link to a place that does list all of those places. Second, we also don't list have Dick, Jane, and Sally that appears on a show--not even in a character list--because one time, or stand-in appearances are rather irrelevant to Wikipedia. IMDb does that. The purpose of linking it is because it's an external source that provides details on things that would not be appropriate to include on Wikipedia. The data that we have no problem including is stuff that we trust Wikipedia to be reliable on (i.e. it's the stuff that isn't user submitted).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Immediate requests	Entries
IMDb in infobox	0
TV.com in infobox	0

On the subject of IMDb and TV.com being removed from the infobox, has enough time passed for these categories to be removed from the template once they have been depopulated (see right). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I would go ahead and say that enough time has passed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, what if the IMDb link for a particular series doesn't have a comprehensive listing of "minor" production staff and even includes inaccurate information? Should we be sending people there for further information that we know to be wrong? Bradley0110 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What "inaccurate" information are we talking about, and what TV series are we talking about? If you can include evidence of why it would not be helpful to include it on Show X, then don't include it in the EL section of Show X. Simple as that. There is no guideline anywhere that will fit every article to a T. It just doesn't work that way. Sometimes a source works well from one standpoint and not well from another (e.g., there are websites that have paid staff that write reviews of TV episodes, but the website itself uses unreliable reporting when it comes to their news coverage thus, as you might use their staff to expand a "Reception" section, the news they report is feed through scoopers and rumors and as such could not be cited in an article). My suggestion is review the pages in the EL section, as per WP:EL, and determine if they actually provide anything we don't. If they do, then keep them. If they don't, then remove them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What if they "actually provide anything we don't" but some of what they provide is inaccurate? --Gadflyr (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

They stuff they provide that's inaccurate is generally the news based stuff, it's also the stuff that we provide (if we can verify it). The stuff they provide that is accurate, and that we don't provide, is typically stuff that isn't based on news reports but studio info or channel info (e.g., aspect ratios, a comprehensive list of everyone that works on the show's production, etc.). We don't link to IMDb because of their upcoming episode information, which is generally wrong (because they base a lot of it on unfounded rumors, which typically start out accurate but are often changed before the episode is finished). We use it for the stuff that doesn't change from episode to episode (some of which I listed above, but that's not everything).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What if there are ELs already listed for other sites, that are more accurate and have equal or greater information? Doesn't that make a partially-incorrect EL redundant and thus unsuitable? --Gadflyr (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What other ELs? I'm not aware of any other ELs that are typically placed on articles that hold that type of information, not even the official website for the show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)