Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

What constitutes a franchise?

At NCIS (franchise) an editor is claiming that JAG is part of the NCIS franchise. (NCIS was a spin-off from JAG, not the other way around). Unfortunately discussion has suddenly stalled and the editor has decided to make his edits anyway. So what constitutes a media franchise? Can a series be part of a spin-off's media franchise? The complete discussion is at Talk:NCIS (franchise)#JAG. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My case rests with the fact that NCIS is clearly a JAG spin-off, and then therefore NCIS spin-offs also exist in the JAG universe. CSI: NY, for example, exists within the CSI franchise, whilst being a Miami spin-off. Series creator Donald P. Bellisario filed a law-suit noting that NCIS: Los Angeles is technically a spin-off of JAG, and all three series exist within the JAG/NCIS franchise. JAG has crossed over with NCIS multiple times, as recently as 2013. Hollywood insiders such as Matt Carter, who states that "all [NCIS series are] stemming from JAG" ([1]), also agree that the series are inter-linked. JAG's existence is already outlined on the franchise page, so it wouldn't mean adding new content, simply moving it around a bit - which I'd be happy to do (and have done, actually), myself. JAG was already included as part of the franchise when the page was first created, though this has since been removed. --Unframboise (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I would personally say based on what's presented here, NCIS would be part of JAG's franchise, rather than JAG as part of the NCIS franchise? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That has been (part of) what I have been arguing, and why JAG was originally removed from the NCIS franchise article. Media franchise says A media franchise is a collection of media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game, which supports the view, since NCIS: Los Angeles and NCIS: New Orleans are derivative works of NCIS. However, the only spinoff from JAG was NCIS, although it's not a spinoff in the traditional sense, since the series itself is totally different to JAG and the NCIS spinoffs have no no resemblance to JAG. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Here are a few more: Matt Mitovich ("JAG/NCIS franchise"; [2]), series star Zoe McLellan, who discusses what its like to play different characters in the same franchise ([3]), and JAG front-man David James Elliott describes himself as the "grandfather" of NCIS: Los Angeles ([4]). Obviously one option would be to re-direct NCIS (franchise) to JAG (franchise) or JAG/NCIS (franchise), however I'm more than happy to concede and just have JAG added to the NCIS page. TenTonParasol, what are your thoughts on all four series existing as part of the same franchise, regardless of whether its under the JAG or NCIS moniker? --Unframboise (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that the first link refers to the "JAG/NCIS franchise", not the "JAG franchise" or the "NCIS franchise", the second refers to "universe", which is different to "franchise" and is really a more accurate term, and the third refers to NCIS: Los Angeles being a spinoff of JAG, which it clearly never was. NCIS: Los Angeles follows the NCIS premise, which is far different to JAG and JAG had ended 4 years before NCIS: Los Angeles aired. NCIS was a completely different series that used two episodes of JAG as a backdoor pilot and the NCIS characters never appeared in JAG before or after those two episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
But JAG characters appeared on NCIS after those two episodes. I think the thing you're having trouble getting your head around is that JAG doesn't have NCIS in the title. If the series was called NCIS: JAG, then you'd have no problem with including it on the franchise page. CSI: Cyber doesn't follow the same premise as CSI, but they're considered one franchise. The Lone Gunmen follows a completely different premise to both The X-Files and Millennium, but again, one franchise. --Unframboise (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
The name is completely irrelevant. The premise, crossover characters etc are all important but none of the NCIS characters were spunoff from JAG. They first appeared in the NCIS pilot and didn't return to JAG after that. Even JAG characters didn't really crossover. One JAG character appeared in one NCIS episode during its first season and that was really the only crossover. A JAG lawyer, who did not appear in JAG before or after the NCIS pilot, later appeared in 2 NCIS episodes, briefly. She spent more time on NCIS than JAG. Another character appeared in 2 unrelated episodes of JAG and NCIS. He only appeared in JAG as a minor character after the NCIS pilot, and then appeared in NCIS with no, as I remember, mention of JAG. Another reprised his JAG role in a single NCIS episode 8 years after JAG ended. NCIS and JAG were like chalk and cheese. You can't claim that anything in the NCIS franchise was derived from JAG. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing you list an awful lot of links between the series, and I'm also seeing ridiculous attempts to claim they're not *really* links. I've given my two cents - we'll see how this plays out. --Unframboise (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nobody said they're not links, but links alone do not demonstrate that JAG is part of the NCIS franchise. There are plenty of links between Homicide: Life on the Street and Law & Order: SVU, they even shared a main character, but Homicide: Life on the Street is not part of the Law & Order franchise. You are, by the way, ignoring the lack of links that I've presented, lack of a similar premise, no JAG characters spun-off into NCIS, distinct lack of character crossovers (2 in hundreds of episodes), etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
If the star of JAG, and the creator of both JAG and NCIS believe these "links" (which clearly indicate a franchise) are enough to indicate a franchise, then I don't see why you're so against the idea. Law & Order and Homicide existed concurrently, and crossed over throughout the shows (like Hawaii Five-0 and NCIS: LA), while JAG spun-off NCIS. NCIS is *clearly* a spin-off of JAG, as noted by CBS here [5] ("Spin-off of the highly successful JAG"), therefore NCIS: LA and NOLA exist as part of the same media franchise. Your argument that "no JAG characters spun-off into NCIS" (aside from appearances by the core four, which were introduced on JAG, Cmdr. Faith Coleman, and Commander Rainer, Bud Roberts, and AJ Chegwidden), would also mean that CSI: NY is not part of the CSI franchise, but instead part of the CSI: Miami franchise, as CSI: NY has only featured an appearance of two CSI characters, and no characters spun-off, not even via an embedded pilot. Again, if anyone knows what series exist as part of the NCIS franchise, its the creator of NCIS. --Unframboise (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the brand/name licensing an important aspect of a franchise in contrast to a universe? Then even a multitude of spin-offs would not automatically form a franchise if they are produced by the same people/companies. (I don't know what the production or licensing situation is for JAG/NCIS.) Another important feature of the examples in Media franchise seems to be the common brand or name, but does JAG carry the NCIS name anywhere, or vice versa?–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
JAG and NCIS are produced by CBS and Bellisarius Productions, NCIS: LA is a Shane Brennan production, with CBS, and NCIS: New Orleans is produced by CBS, Gary Glasberg's company, and Mark Harmon's production company. The common brand, in this case, would be the military justice nature of the series, as claimed by Bellisario and Elliott, CBS also explicitly uses JAG to promote NCIS overseas (as demonstrated above, [6]). JAG and NCIS do not carry each-others names in title, though both reference the activities of the other group throughout the series - JAG even sent one of its characters off for a secondment with NCIS. And I mean, hell, even this mainstay of the NCIS opening credits [7] is taken from a JAG episode. --Unframboise (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
And I know that part of Aussie's (poorly formed) argument is that a JAG/NCIS franchise is different to an NCIS franchise, but I created the franchise page originally, and the only reason I didn't include JAG in the title is because it seemed redundant, and I assumed everybody would know it was part of the same group of series. Clearly I overestimated the intelligence of some editors. --Unframboise (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Unframboise:: This comment is incivil and not appropriate at all. Editors are reminded that during discussions all editors should respect each other and act civilly to each other at all times. 185.22.175.244 (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the contents of the page in question is all fine and there is clearly a connection between JAG and the NCIS-es. The problem is the title. I also concede that "NCIS franchise" is a commonly used name by Google search, but it is more difficult to find out for what actually. The question is still what makes this a franchise in contrast to a shared universe (and I have a suspicion that some people use this interchangeably). I still think this cannot be decided in-universe but in general, there needs to be a real-world franchisor and licensee. For instance, if some video game company pays the NCIS brandholder a license fee to produce an NCIS game (which actually exists, Google tells me), then there would be a media franchise, consisting of the TV series and the video games. (And maybe there are even NCIS breakfast cereals which makes it more than a media franchise.) The TV series (plural) on their own might or might not be a franchise, the article has no real-world information that would support it.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely with your thoughts on the franchise - it's a confusing term when used in the context of television, and it does need to be better defined by Wiki. In terms of JAG and NCIS, I, personally, think the best way to go about this is by basing the decision off the contents of other franchise pages (Law & Order (franchise), CSI (franchise), The X-Files (franchise), Chicago (franchise), to name a few), which all seem to support all four series (JAG, NCIS, LA and NOLA) being listed as part of the "franchise".
And as for this IP editor that has popped up (seemingly for the first time ever on Wikipedia), and reverted one of my edits and then made their way over here to reprimand me, thanks for your input, but no thanks. If you are a veteran Wikipedian (whom I shall not name) in I.P. cloak, then your sneakiness isn't endearing, or subtle, in the slightest. --Unframboise (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
believe these "links" (which clearly indicate a franchise) - That's an OR assumption at best. By your own words, "JAG/NCIS military justice franchise" was used. This does not automatically translate to either "JAG franchise" or "NCIS franchise". The words were used in a claim by a plaintiff, who had a vested interest in some form of monetary compensation, so the use is therefore self-serving and not WP:RS. And, of course, the matter was settled out of court. There was never a legal ruling upholding the plaintiff's claim. As for the star of JAG, as I've already pointed out, the source refers to a universe, not a franchise.
Cmdr. Faith Coleman, and Commander Rainer, Bud Roberts, and AJ Chegwidden) - How many times is it necessary to go over this?
  1. Cmdr. Faith Coleman was introduced in the NCIS pilot. She never appeared on JAG again. She did appear in a couple of NCIS episodes, making her more an NCIS character than a JAG character.
  2. Commander Rainer appeared in precisely one episode of JAG and precisely one episode of NCIS. Both appearances happened in the same year but neither appearance was related. He was neither a JAG character nor an NCIS character, he was just a character who happened to appear in both series.
  3. Bud Roberts - This was the only actual crossover character.
  4. AJ Chegwidden - He never appeared in NCIS while JAG was airing. The character was reprised for a single episode of NCIS four years after JAG ended.
part of Aussie's (poorly formed) argument is that a JAG/NCIS franchise is different to an NCIS franchise - I never said that. I said, twice now, that "JAG/NCIS military justice franchise" does not automatically translate to either "JAG franchise" or "NCIS franchise". To claim that is OR.
Most of this though is irrelevant. Media franchise says A media franchise is a collection of media in which several derivative works have been produced from an original work of media (usually a work of fiction), such as a film, a work of literature, a television program or a video game. JAG only ever had a single "spin-off", NCIS, which was different in almost every way possible to JAG. The only common aspect was that both deal with military justice. By its very definition then, there is no JAG franchise. NCIS: Los Angeles and NCIS: New Orleans are derivative works of NCIS, not JAG. They have even less resemblance to JAG than NCIS does. JAG cannot belong to the NCIS franchise since it is not a derivative work of NCIS. It came before NCIS. It's really that simple. That said, I opened this discussion to get input from other editors, not to rehash what we've already discussed at Talk:NCIS (franchise). You've also opened a DRN discussion. Please feel free to rehash there, or to continue the discussion at Talk:NCIS (franchise). --AussieLegend (✉) 11:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Noggin (app)"

Hello, I've noticed that an article has been started for the Noggin mobile app here. It is a low-quality page that could definitely use some cleanup, but I do not think the page should remain on its own. While the application has received some coverage and is produced by Viacom, I'd say that it's not enough to earn its own article. However, I believe that redirecting the app's page to a section about the app in an article about the now-defunct Noggin television network (which the app is based on) would work. "Noggin (TV channel)" currently redirects to what it was replaced by, Nick Jr., but there are significant differences between the two channels. Noggin began as a tween-oriented co-production between the Children's Television Workshop and Nickelodeon, while Nick Jr. has always been a preschool channel airing solely Nickelodeon content. Noggin also had a much different format than its successor, as it did not air commercials and instead had its own mascots. There was a short-lived Noggin in the United Kingdom, too, which would get its own section on the page as well. I've collected about twenty sources that would help start a Noggin article, and as of the moment I'd say that the article would be a little longer than Toon Disney (an article with a similar topic). Do you think that the app page should be redirected to an article about the networks and the app, or stay as is? Thank you. Squiddaddy (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A "Netflix Original" vs. Netflix original programming

Taking WP:TVINTL and WP:WORLDVIEW into account, any opinions to add at Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix#Degrassi: Next Class? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Degrassi season articles

It seems all the Degrassi season articles (most of which are in Category:Degrassi: The Next Generation) have both Canadian and U.S. air dates. Am I right in thinking that as this is a Canadian show and the show was first broadcast in Canada, that per WP:TVINTL and WP:NOTTVGUIDE that we should remove the U.S. dates, as not-notable? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know much about this series but, from what I can see, there doesn't seem a reason for the US dates to be included. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - that's what I thought. I did think there was a specific guideline about this somewhere, but I couldn't find it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you reckon for Degrassi: Next Class (season 1), which had an international Netflix release the day after the last episode aired on Canadian TV? It seems show is classed as Netflix original programming. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Allô, Allô

RM related to this project. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Proposal to eliminate production codes from lists of episodes

I am requesting comments on the proposal that we eliminate production codes from all lists of episodes, as well as Template:Episode table, Template:Episode list, and similar templates.

My reasons for this proposal are that:

  1. The vast majority are unsourced or poorly sourced (often model sheets from Tumblr)
  2. They add little information and are arguably fancruft
  3. They are common magnets for editing disputes and sneaky vandalism

Episode number of airdate should be enough information for the tables. Order can be determined per series if there are large differences between DVD orders and airdates.

The only value to them that I am aware of is that they may indicate that episodes were aired in a different order than intended by the writers. This is often trivial and any non-trivial instances could easily by mentioned and sourced in a note either in the plot summary or as a footnote.

I have no problem with well-sourced production codes on individual episode articles as this seems like a more appropriate place for such detailed information. But on a list of episodes it seems to cause more problems than the information added warrants.

I chose an RFC for this discussion because there have been past discussions on this issue with few comments and no real outcomes. Please see 2006, 2009, 2012, 2012 (detailed discussion of issue), 2014, and 2015 for past discussions of production codes on this project's talk page.

Thank you and I look forward to comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't really disagree with anything said in the nomination. I hate production codes BUT, just last night I was trying to figure out why my Becker episodes didn't match List of Becker episodes and the reason was that my versions were listed by prod code, not aired date. There are series where production codes are extremely important. Firefly is always the one that comes to mind. I think there is definitely reason to strongly discourage routine use of production codes, but I'd strongly oppose banning them completely. They should only be used when relevant, and we should require that editors need to demonstrate relevance. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that production codes should be removed either, as they are very helpful when sourced. TheFutonCritic supplies sources for production codes for many of the television show articles I work on. When researching series that follow a storyline or incorporate any continuity at all, the order in which they were produced can come in handy. Squiddaddy (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't like production codes that can't be reliably sourced but find them useful for production order when the network has jerked around the order for whatever marketing reasons and corrupted the narrative arch. I would like a way to view episodes in the artistically created correct order or at least ensure that the aired order is the created order. When there is no question the info is reliably sourced such as the production codes are in the episode end credits we should always have them in the episode entry. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose – absolutely not. Production codes do impart important information (esp. for sitcoms), as they allow you to figure out the "chronological order" of the episodes, regardless of what order the network airs them in – this is especially useful for older (pre-2000's, esp. pre-1990's) shows, which were often aired in completely bizarre episode orders (see, for example: Saved by the Bell). There is a reason why people have been including production codes in TV episode guides going back to the earliest days of the internet long before Wikipedia even existed. Removing that information from here would hobble Wiki's usefulness on TV programming and would drive readers away from this site and to other sites (like Epguides.com) which do include such info. As Geraldo Perez can tell you, production codes often can be sourced, to the Copyright Office. But removing them wholesale from Wikipedia is a truly terrible idea... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If the show has a production code then you can include it, and if it doesn't, then don't use the field. Same with the ratings field. Some shows are popular enough to have weekly ratings posted, while others never attain that level. There are plenty of shows that air stuff out of order, only to learn what the production order is by the home media or copyright.gov office. I agree that unsourced codes should be removed. When the show doesn't have a chance of being aired out of order like a talk show, variety show, news, or if it has an official episode number, then the code is not needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The problem with including production codes is more one of available screen space. The director and writer fields on some episodes take up an enormous amount of space, often up to 50% of screen width, with "No. overall", "No. in season", episode title, air date, production code and viewers having to battle it out for the remaining 50%. The episode title is sometimes left with a paltry 15% as a result. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly looks like this should be closed as WP:SNOW. That said, I am going to be more proactive about removing production codes without sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tumblr as source

I often see production crews' Tumblrs used as sources, especially model sheets. I've always found this questionable since there is no easy way to verify Tumblr accounts that I am aware of. Should we do anything about the use of them as sources, or just continue the status quo and let them slide? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

They should pass the self-published source verification (WP:TWITTER) as well as be known as a "verified" account (see WP:FACEBOOK or WP:Twitter-EL). If Tumblr is difficult to be "verified", it should not be used. In short, if the veracity of the info is coming into question, it shouldn't be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Image size discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding." The latest aspect of the discussion is the 1.4 Amended proposal (2A) subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has progressed to a WP:RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

New television templates

Simply informing the project that {{Television episode ratings}}, a commonly copy-pasted table for episode ratings, is now up and available for use. Also: {{Television season ratings}}. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Filmography table

I've created {{Filmography table}}. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's too elaborate to use and also too simplified. I usually deal with filmography tables with tens of entries and ones that get re-sorted regularly as information comes in. A lot of entries have year ranges for TV series. It also needs a reference column. Are you thinking of some way to standardize the header? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: Hmm, I didn't think of reordering, that's a good point. Maybe it could be done like {{Episode list}}, I don't know. As for the reference column, that's easy to add in. I was just thinking it would simplify things if a template automatically did the proper formatting. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television episode update

Maybe we could change "Original air date" to read "Release date" or "Original release date" or something along those lines on Template:Infobox television episode. Because then it would be in sync with Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox television season. Also with the growing trends of programming being released through streaming services a lot of newer television episodes never technically "air" on television like this for example. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This might be good as a second field instead of replacing air date, although having both options might encourage listing both. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: The "air date" field was replaced completely in both of the aforementioned infoboxes (without being made a second field) and that has been working out fine. The term "release date" (or "original release date") would still work for any episode really, considering the fact that the original television premiere is the release date in most cases. Also like you said it would encourage people doing both if we had to fields. Grapesoda22 (submit hate mail here) 23:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing

Sourcing of information in TV articles seems to be becoming more of an issue lately, with even experienced editors willing to break the rules. For example, at List of Better Call Saul episodes, even though the next season hasn't even started yet, it already has an end date in the article, based on this episode list which only includes scheduled dates and production codes. There are not even any press releases for individual episodes, let alone the finale which is 3 months away. WP:CRYSTAL is clear on this: Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. As we should all be aware, episodes can be rescheduled at any time so we can't assume episode dates 3 months away are definite. WP:SYNTH requires that citations directly support claims and assumptions that "there are x episodes and there are x episodes listed so this must be a fact" are simply not acceptable. At Bones (season 11), tweets are included using {{cite tweet}} which, ironically, includes the following banner:

Anyone can create a Twitter account and call themselves whatever they want. For this and other reasons we really can't accept tweets unless they are verified accounts. Assuming that an account belongs to a certain person simply because of the name and that they may have access to some production information is original research, which is not permitted by policy. The same goes for other social media, which is why we have guidelines like WP:SPS and WP:TWITTER as well as policies like WP:OR. The examples above are just two that I've recnetly been involved with but there are plenty more. We really need to ensure that sourcing is solid and complies with WP:V, which is a core policy. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

TV Grapevine

TV Grapevine is being used as a source at List of Better Call Saul episodes now but it does not look at all like a reliable source to me. It doesn't have an about page and several of the staff links go nowhere. WHOIS shows the registrant as private so that's no help. HAs anyone else got an opinion on this site? --AussieLegend (✉) 05:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Spanish skills needed: problems here and vandalism on the Spanish WP

The last line of Red ATB is so incomprehensible due to an apparently Spanish word that i don't know how to correct it. It's been that way ever since the article was created many years ago. The creator's user page sounds like that of a spammer and the account was used to create spamlike useless pages according to the account's talk page. Most of the account's other edits seem to deal with TV and should all be reviewed.

The Spanish version of Red ATB was edited by a user whose edits are apparently mostly vandalism but have mostly not been reverted. --Espoo (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content rating

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Content rating. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move discussion requires more attention

There is a move discussion at Talk:Supergirl (Japanese TV series) that really requires more attention from other editors. I know you're out there, I see you editing, so please have your say. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

List of supercouples move discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:List of supercouples#Requested move: Move back to List of fictional supercouples. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear: This move discussion concerns whether or not real-life people should be on the list. If you really have no problem with the list reverting back to how it was years ago (the inclusion of real-life people), then (going by the current lean of the move discussion) there is no need to comment. If you do have a problem with it, then now is the time to comment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bolding in character lists

Should character sections in lists be bolded? See List of Disney's Aladdin characters for example. AFAIK, it should not be bolded, but I cannot pinpoint anywhere that says this specifically. (WP:TVCAST says not to, but that seems to be within a series article, not a standalone list.) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have also seen it italicized, or bold+italics. All of this should be discussed together. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
If there's no set standard yet, we should set one and add it to MOS:TV imho. I think we need to standardize a bit more of the MOS. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
MOS:BOLD gives the limited cases where bold is used. We shouldn't change MOS:TV to conflict with MOS:BOLD. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm suggesting the opposite; if boldface should not be used, let's specify that in MOS:TV. MOS:BOLD doesn't expressly forbid it, so I think MOS:TV should if that's the way we wish to go with it (and I think that's the correct way). But there's also the issue of redirects... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It depends on the list. For the Aladdin characters, they are already bolded by being section headers, so no, they do not need to be bolded twice. However, some character descriptions are done in bullet list "dictionary definition" form or paragraph form, and bolding might be helpful to stand them out, as per MOS:ANIME / MOS:BOLD. WP:TVCAST and WP:FILMCAST applies mainly to "Actor as Character" lists, so if your cast list is in that format, they do not need bolding. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@AngusWOOF: I can agree with the bulleted list idea... still wondering what to do with bolding regarding redirects like Richard Nixon's head. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Take off all the bolding on the List of recurring Futurama characters where the character is already mentioned in the section header. Link to characters within the series as example link to Headless Body of Agnew instead of Spiro Agnew. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Done. I will update similar lists and articles in the future. Any objection to adding this to the TV MOS? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would the MOS TV need to be changed? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added to the MOS but I can see where EvergreenFir is coming from. MOS:BOLD permits bolding in description lists using appropriate markup (; Heading : Description text) but WP:BADHEAD says Do not make pseudo-headings using semicolon markup and try to avoid using bold markup. Screen readers and other machines can only use correctly formatted headings for navigation. These are contradictory guidelines so we need something more definite. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

ToonZone Forums

I looked through the archives here and on RSN... there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion or consensus about using Toonzone as a source. I've seen people citing the toonzone forum as a source for upcoming episodes and ratings (and have removed them as not RS). But I wasn't sure if this was the consensus about it and figured getting a few voices on the matter would be useful. To me, it seems like a non-RS because forum posts are anonymous from what I can tell and have no fact checking to them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion forums are addressed at WP:SPS and ToonZone was specifically addressed in this RSN discussion, as well as others.[8] WP:SPS says that Internet forum postings are largely not acceptable as sources. ToonZone is listed at WP:TVFAQ as an unreliable source. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Didn't see the FAQ. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
We really should advertise the FAQ more. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:TVFAQ

I'll reiterate again that it would be really great if we could come up with UK and Australian (and Canadian) equivalents of The Hollywood Reporter and Variety (and Entertainment Weekly) for the TVFAQ 'Reliable sources' links. For the UK, I was hoping that Radio Times might work, but it didn't look like they do articles much. For Canada, I've been stuck using The Globe and Mail (and occasionally Mclean's or the Toronto Star). For Australia, the The Sydney Morning Herald sometimes works... But, for all three countries, it would be better if there were film & television "industry trade" papers/magazines that we could add to the WP:TVFAQ 'Reliable sources' list for people to refer to... So does anyone have any suggestions here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Programming by language categories

Is there an explanation somewhere on how these work? Like I am not sure if this means 'you can only have one, the original language' or 'you can have any language the series has been translated into'.

Code Lyoko is originally French but has an English dubbing aired overseas. Would this make Category:English-language television programming appropriate or not?

One thing I am not sure how to place is when a series debuts in different languages for different episodes. Pac-World for example, had seasons 1 and 2 debut in English, but season 3 debuted first in Japan and only had English debuts months later.

Legends of Awesomeness is similar, seasons 1-2 and the first half of season 3 were I believe first all released in English. But then due to a hiatus with Nick delaying the airings of the show for over a year, the latter half of season 3 was actually released earlier in German in Germany during January 2015. It is only just now getting English releases during December 2015-February 2016 in Canada and the United States.

So would it possible be appropriate to list English/Japanese programming for Pac-World and English/German programming for Legends of Awesomeness? 184.145.18.50 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguity of Category:Directors

Pre-CFR discussion on possible new names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Ambiguous_name:_Category:Directors_and_national_subcats.

This would effect the parent categories of Category:Film directors, Category:Theatre directors, Category:Television directors, Category:Opera directors, etc. It would not effect the titles of the categories used on individual biographical articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment - List of Doctor Who Serials

There has been a long, circular discussion at Talk: List of Doctor Who serials#Edit Request: The Husbands of River Song on whether or not to include Christmas specials in the individual series articles/sections. Some argue including them based on their inclusion in "Complete series" DVD/blu-ray box sets. Others argue that these sets are not valid sources for this. I have created an RFC at that talk page in the hope that outside editors can help break the impasse we have there. If you can, please contribute to the discussion at that talk page. Thanks! Etron81 (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"Controversial" reception

In a reception section, the MOS asks for broadcast ratings, and reviews from conglomerates, major newspapers and major periodicals, as well as impacts on society, language, or the medium.

Many articles contain a paragraph in the reception section about some (often special interest) groups who dislike the TV series and express their dislike on their website. Sometimes a minor newspaper picks it up. Sometimes there are official/unofficial responses from the production. What some groups say about a show on their website is probably WP:SELFPUBLISHED, and if a small special news organization reports it, potentially still WP:SOAP? If there is no effect on the production of the series, are those opinions WP:UNDUE?

Some examples are Lucifer, Angel from Hell, The Real O'Neals, The Muppets, or The Fosters. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can guarantee without even looking at these that the Family Research Council is going to feature heavily. Groups like this, as far as I can see, are little more than fringe opinions and don't represent the wider critical audience, and should no more be given the undue weight they already receive than the man on the moon. I think these kinds of thing fly under the radar because people want to show two sides to everything, but the trick is to understand that balance is not served by overinflating a minority opposition. GRAPPLE X 14:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl viewership

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion regarding the television viewership of Super Bowl 50 at Talk:Super_Bowl_50#Poll_on_viewership. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at {{CGuest}}

There is currently a discussion at Template talk:CGuest regarding how to handle the template's background color and if the information should be linked. As this template (and {{CMain}} and {{CRecurring}}) are used mainly on TV-related articles, it would be great to have other editors voice opinions. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Interview Request

Hey everyone! I My user name is Gen. Quon, and I'm a user pretty active in the X-Files, The Office, and Adventure Time fandoms. Anyway, I have a request. I'm currently in grad school working on an MA thesis that focuses on Wikipedia, fandom, and canon. I'm particularly interested in how fan editors aggregate and define 'canon'. Are there any editors here that would be willing to partake in a short (roughly 10) question interview via email or talk page? Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: I'd be interested. You can send me an email of the questions. Drovethrughosts (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I would also be willing, just add them to my talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Ditto, on my talk page. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Gen. Quon. If you want to save some typing - or at least some cutting and pasting - you could create a sandbox with your questions in it and let each editor who is willing to take part come to that sandbox to add their answers. Just a suggestion and you can handle this however you wish. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Good idea.

Adamstom.97 and AlexTheWhovian: I would greatly appreciate your input! I have made a sandbox with my questions. If you would like, you can just add your responses underneath each question. If you want them to be more private, feel free to email via Wikipedia. Thanks everyone!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What is TV?

There is an RFC for an article that I edit that has prompted me to write this. While I am not directly involved in that content dispute -- although I am trying to keep the RFC process on task -- I do notice that an interesting meta-question has arisen in the discussion, to wit: Does Wikipedia need to embrace a new definition of "television" to encompass the many forms of media that "TV shows" are now being broadcast on?

Comments? Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Anime-styled show later broadcast in Japan. Should it have Japanese VAs?

Need your thoughts on Talk:RWBY#Remove_Japanese_VAs Thanks. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Miniseries runtimes

In May 2015, {{Infobox television film}} was merged with {{Infobox television}} after a TfD discussion. At the time, nobody noticed that runtimes for miniseries were not being listed per episode. Instead the entire length of the the miniseries is listed. I only became aware of this today, after I found this discussion at Talk:And Then There Were None (TV series). The instructions for Infobox television specify runtimes per episode. Should we be adding different instructions for miniseries, or should we remain consistent and specify episode runtimes for all programs? --AussieLegend (✉) 09:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If the article is about the entire series (as in the example mentioned) rather than an individual episode for the series I would recommend that the total runtime should be listed. Another possibility is to note each episode separately as is done in this infobox War and Peace (film series). Whatever the final consensus is please make sure to add it to the documentation for the template. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
A simple way to make it unambiguous when the infobox runtime is for the entire miniseries is to write "runtime: 864 minutes total". Does it have to be broken down into individual episodes? Such a listing might become quite long. (Also, this will lead to lots of discussions which shows are a miniseries, a short-order TV series/season, a limited series, or a TV serial.) –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. MarnetteD|Talk 17:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
War and Peace (film series) uses {{Infobox film}}. {{Infobox television}} doesn't specify that we need to list episode runtimes individually, just the average runtime per episode. That typically means one figure. For And Then There Were None (TV series), all parts were 60 minutes long so the runtime would just require |runtime=60 minutes. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I should probably mention that, when I was converting articles using Infobox television film to instead use Infobox television, I found less than 200 articles that were disambiguated using "(miniseries)". That leaves about 36,600 articles that are not miniseries. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand this statistics. Not all miniseries would have to have the parentheses (miniseries) disambiguation, that's only if their title exists as something else, too. So having 36,600 articles without the disambig (miniseries) would not mean that none of those were miniseries? –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have comments about this matter? Should we provide an exemption for miniseries in Infobox television? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Season categories for episode list articles

Should episode list articles have Category:2016 television seasons and such if the article does not have separate season pages yet, or not? nyuszika7h (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Preferred national disambiguators?

Does WP:TV have "preferred" national disambiguators for the United States and Britain? Are "(U.S. TV series)" and "(UK TV series)" preferred? (I've certainly seen these more often...) Or are "(American TV series)" and "(British TV series)" also OK (or even preferred over the former)?... I'm asking because I've come across the occasional "(American TV series)"/"(British TV series)" disambiguators, and I've wondered if I should move them to "(U.S. TV series)"/"(UK TV series)"?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know the policy, but IMHO "American TV series" seems far too vague. I mean, I know it's referring to the US, but technically, any TV show from any country in North or South America would count as an "American TV series". I think "U.S. TV series" is not only more specific, but also is more compact. Like I said, just my opinion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
American as an adjective in common English usage always refers to the U.S. as in American actor, American television series, etc. Canadians sometimes make a fuss about that – nobody else seems to care, and Canadians seem resigned to say North American when they want to be included (Canadian here). There is no confusion with other countries in the Americas. For the disambiguation pages as long as they are disambiguated it should make no difference whether we use the adjective descriptors of the country modifying the noun or the country name as part of a noun phrase. Only related issue is Brits seem to like things described as English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Given that Britain is only one element of the UK, I'd say using UK as the disambiguator is eminently more preferable to British, or you're making the claim that it was produced solely on one the country's islands. GRAPPLE X 01:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
By the same argument, "U.S." seems vastly preferable over "American" to me as well... But am I correct that there's no "formal" WikiProject Television "standard" disambiguation scheme (which I guess means it's "editor's choice" here)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree here. But I don't think there is an explicit policy. As for "American" being a common English reference to the US, I get that (I'm American!) but I think, between the choice of 'American' and 'U.S.' one is much less (potentially) ambiguous and also shorter.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
British (see Terminology of the British Isles) in common usage means of or related to the UK so British TV series would be accurate replacement for UK TV series. I'd say in general if there is a disambiguation need to be consistent. If we are using <country adjective> <article type>, use that for all related articles. If <country noun> <article type> use it for all. Definitely if we are saying Japanese, French, German TV series for some related disambiguaters we should be using American and British but this is not important enough to change existing articles if there is no confusion. See Supergirl (disambiguation). Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall: - To address the original question, yes there are "preferred" national disambiguators for the United States and Britain. Disambiguation is specifically addressed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), specifically at WP:NCTVUS (or WP:NCTVUK if you prefer). If you choose to move any articles, it's probably a good idea to use the more appropriate link in the explanation for the move, i.e. WP:NCTVUS for U.S. articles and WP:NCTVUK for UK articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, that seems to answer the "U.S." vs. "American" question. But I'm not sure it settles the "UK" vs. "British" issue... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That guideline was written 10-years ago so not worth a change. Inconsistent usage with NCTV saying use country name with support of U.S. (UK is not in an example) but does not support "Canadian" in the example as "Canadian" is not a country name. If we stick with country of broadcast we should be consistent and not use country adjectives here for any disambig. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but "U.S." seems to also function as an adjective, grammatically synonymous with "American" ('the American capital city', 'the U.S. capital city'; 'the American military', 'the U.S. military'). Is this the same case with 'UK'? I feel it might, but I'm not from the UK!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:NCTV links to WP:NCA which says, Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. That's why we use "Foo (UK TV series)" and "Foo (U.S. TV series)". "Foo (Canada TV series)", "Foo (Australia TV series)" etc just doesn't read correctly, which is why we use "Canadian", "Australian" etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: I think you meant "UK TV series" and "U.S. TV series", not the other way around. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed I did. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Category clean up recruitment - Category:Lists of television series episodes

I've stumbled upon Category:Lists of television series episodes and see that there's a lot of pages (1) in this cat but also with subcats and (2) just in this cat without being subcategorized. Requesting help in removing parent categories per WP:SUBCAT and adding subcategories when possible.

It seems this category needs some reorganization. I've created Category:Lists of documentary television series episodes for example to help categorize pages. I'm generally adding subcats based on the episode article's categorization.

If you're bored and want some mindless work, this is right up your alley. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the parent category from pages containing Category:Lists of American television series episodes and/or Category:Lists of sitcom television series episodes (56 articles). – nyuszika7h (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Good Heavens! I didn't even realize these cat's existed!! Ah, well – looks like I have some work to do... [sigh] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
And then there are sub-subcats like Category:Lists of American comedy television series episodes, fun. That makes me wonder what to do about sitcoms, do we add both American comedy and sitcom? As there is no American sitcom category. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
+8 articles for subcats of American, no additonal matches found in subcats of sitcom. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It might be better to use a bot account for this to avoid polluting RC. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
BRFA opened at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Nyubot. Any comments welcome. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Awesome! Thank you all for your help! I've been trying to do some by hand, but a bot would be wonderful. If we could get some of the categories organized by country, that would awesome too. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

List of episodes titling

OK, I'm bringing this up here because MOS:TV doesn't explicitly mention the issue, so I thought I'd get clarification here. If a TV series article has something like a "(TV series)" disambiguator in the article title, should that also be included in the "List of [TV series] episodes" article – like "List of [TV series] (TV series) episodes"? Or should it always be dropped – like "List of [TV series] episodes" (i.e. no disambiguator) – on the pretense that the disambiguator is strictly unnecessary in this case? TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The disambiguator should only be used when necessary—for example, Millennium (TV series) is disambiguated because it needs to be, but there is nothing else with which List of Millennium episodes would be confused, and so it need not carry the same disambiguator. However, if there were to be two series with the same name, like the US and UK versions of The Office, for example, then their episode lists could still be mistaken for each other and would need to remain disambiguated. GRAPPLE X 16:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, with the series I'm thinking of, there's just the one series, so no disambiguator. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Defining what nationality a programme is

I'm wondering how the nationality of a TV programme is (e.g. is it a British production, an American one or a British-American production?). The reason is that some British people get really pissed off when they see statement saying a what they see as a British programme being entitled a co-production. Theoosmond (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've always considered the production companies to be the source of the "nationality" of a series. Usually (though not always) the show will initially air in the countries where it is produced as well. See The Amazing World of Gumball as an example of a multi-national show. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Storyboarders listed?

Should we include storyboarders in episode lists? I see nothing about it in the TVMOS or in past discussion. I've seen some users add it, such as Luigi1090 did in edits like these. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes. First because they're credited in the TV presentation of an episode. Second because they're the key for the development & operation of the animated series, which are really different from the live-action series. Luigi1090 (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I'm not terribly opposed to their inclusion. I think they might be a bit too minor in some cases, but I know they're very important and influential in some shows like Adventure Time and Steven Universe. I think we should add it as a parameter to {{Episode table}} though... I'm gonna try to do it now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir and Luigi1090: The problem is that this makes the episode table too crowded. Something being listed in the credits does not mean we must include it, per WP:IINFO. If they're really that important, maybe they could be included at the end of the summary, like guest stars, I don't know. But general consensus seems to be not to include storyboard writers. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Fairly OddParents (season 8) is pretty crowded even on my 1600x900 screen, and it's even worse on 1024x768. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x2 Can you point to where this was discussed before? I didn't find anything in the archives here when searching "storyboard". I did update the template and honestly don't think it looks too bad. Check out an example at The Fairly OddParents (season 4). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Dark Cocoa Frosting: I added that a couple days ago. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems consensus is that it should not be included. I am going to remove it from FoP pages. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes#"Mimimus is Missing"

Hey all, there's a discussion at Talk:List of Sofia the First episodes#"Mimimus is Missing" about whether or not one episode, "Minimus is Missing" belongs in S2 or S3. Additional feedback from the community would be greatly appreciated. Despite being ongoing for 3 months, it's not a huge discussion, so it won't take much time to read and reply if you get a sec. Thank you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Theater section at Danai Gurira article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Danai Gurira#Theater section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows

Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) network shows has been nominated for renaming to Category:TBS (U.S. TV channel) programs. Please take the opportunity to share your opinions on this proposal at the discussion entry. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

TV series ratings

A discussion recently came up here regarding displaying viewership for a series which ratings are always under a million viewers to be displayed in thousands. AlexTheWhovian recently added the viewer-type modifier to Template:Episode table which allows for the ratings column to say "thousands" instead of "millions". This is particularly useful, for example List of Black Sails episodes (among others), where viewership is in the thousands and not millions. It seems illogical to display, for example, the number 843,000 as 0.843 million when it can just be easily listed as 843 in the episode table, as constantly listing the zero and decimal being unnecessary. What do other TV editors think? Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I prefer the decimal. A lot of the time "0.843" doesn't actually mean 843,000 because of rounding. I'd prefer not to list a full number like 842,540, which could seem encouraged because of the extra digits places. Consistency among pages is also preferred. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
0.843 and 843,000 are the same thing. The table would not list 843,000, it would just list 843 with the column stating the viewing figures are in thousands, not millions. The numbers are already rounded though. The exact viewing figure is never released. You'll never see a number like 842,540 in a ratings release. Look here Archived 2016-02-24 at the Wayback Machine or here for example. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
With that clarification, I would prefer "0.843" (in millions) over "843" (in thousands). (I would have preferred "843,000" over "0.843" (in millions) though...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It's quite technical, but .843 million is not the same as 843,000, just as .843 is not the same as .843000. The decimal point limited to three places can imply rounding, whereas "843,000" seems like a precise figure. So I would still prefer we keep the parameter consistent. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
And again, Wikipedical, we are not listing 843,000, as mentioned before. 0.843 million implies rounding, yes, but so does 843 thousands. If the latter were not rounded, then it would be listed as 843.481, for example, but it is not. In my opinion, viewers should be display in the highest base of 10 (in multiples of three, 10^3, 10^6, etc) as their highest rating is. That is, if the viewers were to go over 1 million for a single episode, then they get displayed in millions, but until then, thousands. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The standard always seems to be putting viewership in millions. For cases where it's under 1 million, decimals are usually used. But viewership below 100,000 is rarely (never?) reported so I don't see a pressing need to make a "thousands" option. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, I just don't see the need for this. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I would stick with the millions and the decimal. You might be able to say "in thousands", but the vast majority of articles use "in millions" and it would be easy for a reader to get confused and wonder how a show had 843 million viewers and not realize that the column actually says "in thousands". It's better to be consistent across the board.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, just use millions. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a bit confusing when the recent Nielsen charts show viewer estimates in the thousands. [9] But I agree it should not be a mix, especially if sorting by viewers. The ratings are typically shown up to the tenths precision though, regardless of viewership. The viewer count column is also not needed if the ratio of rating to viewers is the same for the entire period. MOS:LARGENUM says 843,000 and 843 thousand are both usable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Replacing br-separated director and writer lists

I created {{ubc}} as a shortcut that can be used in articles that separate directors and writers with <br />, since {{Unbulleted list}} is left-aligned by default, and it would be tedious to have to add |list_style=text-align:center to every call. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: just looking at your use of this template at List of K.C. Undercover episodes, at least for the writers, don't they have '&' or 'and' credits? Or are they just credited as together? IE, for ep 1, is the credit "Written by: Rob Lotterstein[break]Corinne Marshall" or "Written by: Rob Lotterstein [& or and] Corinne Marshall"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: They are credited as "Teleplay by: Rob Lotterstein and[break]Corinne Marshall" (and "Story by: Corinne Marshall", but that was eventually removed because it couldn't really fit nicely and she is in there already anyway). Many Disney/Nickelodeon shows were changed to just use line breaks to fit better (previously just "&" was used everywhere). I don't think they even knew there's a difference, even I only recently learned that. But I don't feel like it's important enough, it looks better this way if it can't nicely fit on one line (or two, for separate story credits). nyuszika7h (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Make the title column narrower and use {{StoryTeleplay}}. They should be listed directly as they are credited (i.e."Story by: Corinne Marshall"[break]"Teleplay by: Rob Lotterstein and Corinne Marshall", and not what best makes the lists look nicer. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: I get that the creators consider it significant enough to make a distinction, but I still consider it a minor detail for an episode table with limited space. The current version wraps much more nicely on smaller screens than the version with two writers on one line. It's not really possible to make it look good on smaller screens even with column width trickery. I believe accessibility is much more important than a minor detail like this, even if it has some significance. If a collaboration is special enough that we need to care, it will be covered by reliable sources and can be explained in prose. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
But I don't feel like it's important enough, it looks better this way if it can't nicely fit on one line... I still considered [the distinction] a minor detail for an episode table with limited space. You can't make that decision about the credits. If they're credited in the episode with story and teleplay distinction, you need to make that apparent, because right now, just listing the writers is incorrect and false, and material that can be challenged. And I'll say now, I'm challenging it, because it is wholly incorrect. As you've portrayed them, is not correct credits. As Alex said, you can definitely shrink the title column width to make the writer column larger to properly use the {{StoryTeleplay}} to give the proper credit. I can sense myself getting sidetracked here, so back to the template, I don't see the immediate purpose for television application. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The distinction is between two writers collaborating on a particular script (names separated with "and"), or an established writing duo who always work together (names separated with "&"). A writing team is really an entity in of itself, like a partnership name. See WGA screenwriting credit system for more on this and why it matters. I would consider line breaks and commas equivalent to "and" but "&" means a single entity so should not be broken. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I see, that makes it more clear than before. If it's really that important, okay then, I've figured out a way to make it look relatively good on List of K.C. Undercover episodes (at least on 1280x800, can't really do much about 1024x768 either way [using Firefox's "Responsive Design Mode"; my screen is 1600x900 so things usually fit for me, but we have to think of people with smaller screens]). And for the other articles, it will be eventually done by someone (I might do some too, along with correcting guest star lists which I've been doing anyway). Anyway, I guess the template is not going to be so useful in this context then. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Teleplay and story may be two different things, but the people that partake in them are still writers. As such, there is nothing inaccurate or untruthful if we just list the persons in the Written by column without those labels on such episodes. And as Nyu states, it condenses things and makes them more organized. It looked ugly before, and yes, aesthetic pleasantness is just as important. Amaury (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Talk:Agent Carter (season 2)

The article currently cites a commentator's opinion that the series contains a thematic allusion to Jessica Jones as an MCU tie-in. One user believes that if the source says "tie-in" then we should say "tie-in"; the other user claims that the source does not say "tie-in" and thinks that thematic allusions are not tie-ins, and thematic allusions to other TV shows set in the same universe should not be distinguished from thematic allusions to other properties not set in the same universe. There is gridlock as we do not agree and don't seem likely to convince each other, and while one other user has been pinged this can not resolve the dispute, as that user can at best take one side or the other, and it will still be a 2-1 gridlock with no consensus. Outside contributors would be appreciated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Applying WP:TVCAST to an LoE page

Additional editors of the project are invited to weigh in on a discussion at Talk:List of K.C. Undercover episodes, here, which is looking to see if a part of WP:TVCAST applies outside of cast lists on articles (this one in particular) that lists actor absences. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is exactly the wrong approach. The discussion needs to be held here, not there. Also, it's best that this actually be proposed as a formal RfC for maximum effect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
In the interest of continuity, it is best to keep the discussion contained. Should it be deemed to take it further, then it can come here. Right now, that is not the case. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

"Last appearance" in the infobox

What is the purpose of this parameter? These are fictional characters so nothing (not even death!) means they will never be seen again. Fictional characters come back from the dead all the time! Sometimes, they end up never having even been dead... it was all just another character's dream! Unlike a first appearance (which can only happen once), a character's last appearance can change at anytime for any reason without warning for all eternity! Not only is having this parameter not encyclopedic in the least, it creates a lot (like... a LOT) of confusion, leading to continuous errors, even when sources confirm a dead character is not done on a show.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please direct any responses here. Thanks in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox character

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox character#Template-protected edit request on 25 February 2016. There is a request to add |mother= and |father= parameter aliases to {{Infobox character}}, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppetry at multiple TV articles

Almost 2 weeks ago I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isla Riordan because of multiple edits like this to multiple television articles. In the past few days I've seen similar edits, to different articles, by multiple anonymous editors, being reverted. It appears that the problems that I identified haven't gone away. I encourage anyone reverting such an edit, or seeing one, to either mention it at the SPI report, or here, as it is an ongoing, cross-wiki problem. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for starting this. I've definitely noticed an uptick in these edits of late. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm amazed at how much vandalism TV related articles attract. That's an impressive amount of socking there... also suspect an automated script. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably some person or persons paid to add spam links. Like the people who post on all message boards everywhere about how their mother-in-law's cousin's boyfriend's dog made $3000/month working at home. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
That can happen?! Wow, I've got to get me one of those dogs! (On a serious note, I've added a bunch, especially IPs to the report. Keep planning to do so as they appear on pages on my watchlist.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I only created my instagram account in December and made a single post. Within a month I was tagged by somebody who posted a comment on a photo Selena Gomez uploaded and apparently I now have tickets to see her in LA. It's no $3,000 dog but.... Thanks to those who added to the SPI. The more information we have, the easier it is to come up with a targeted fix. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Being: Mike Tyson

I've been working on and off on a draft for the FOX series Being: Mike Tyson. I've been searching for some rating information which I might be able to use, but have had no luck so far. I've checked TV by the Numbers, but haven't found anything for this particular series. The series was only one 6-episode season and originally ran in Sept./Oct. 2013. Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions on where I might be able to find such information. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I've found that newspaper archives can be useful, the Rocky Mountain News carried some ratings info when I was working on Millennium episodes although that was for a show broadcast 20 years ago so there's no guarantee they'd keep printing the same kind of thing. GRAPPLE X 08:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Grapple X. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Experienced editor removing spoilers

At List of The 100 characters an experienced editor is removing is removing what he considers to be spoilers, despite WP:SPOILER.[10][11] Some eyes on that article would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, there is no need to report me here like I am some vandal. I explained here and here. I am very much against unnecessary spoiling, and cases like this one at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service is just one example of why. I will be starting a WP:RfC on this matter very soon. And I will come back here to link to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
And let's not forget that I left in this spoiler, for reasons explained. But the other one? No, I do not see it as necessary on a page that is meant to give a brief character description; that character has her own Wikipedia article, and I am against unnecessarily spoiling in the lead of her article or with a heading. I included the spoilers where readers should expect them or possibly expect them, and that's the way it should be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As I have said on your talk page, apparently while you were typing here, by all means, draft a change to WP:SPOILER, as you claim to be doing,[12][13] or start an RfC, but don't preempt the outcome of the proposal or RfC by removing what you consider to be spoilers from articles. At best it's inappropriate, as WP:SPOILER has had wide support for a long time. As an experienced editor, you should know better than to make such edits.
let's not forget that I left in this spoiler, for reasons explained. - As you should have, since WP:SPOILER says not to remove them.
No, I do not see it as necessary on a page that is meant to give a brief character description; that character has her own Wikipedia article - Whether or not she has her own article is irrelevant. The death of a character is a significant event and should be mentioned in a narrative about the character. After all, she's not going to be in further episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Like I told you on my talk page: What I consider to be unnecessary spoiling is, in fact, considered to unnecessary spoiling by many editors. This is seen with cases like this one at Talk:Kingsman: The Secret Service, and by multiple complaints at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, and various complaints by our readers across Wikipedia. And yet nothing is being about editors placing spoilers any and everywhere and using the WP:SPOILER guideline for justification. First of all, it is a guideline, not a policy. And there are indeed cases where we should not spoil, such as spoiling the twist ending in the lead of the The Sixth Sense article. If you were to add that spoiler to that lead, do you think most editors would support that it stay there if I started a WP:RfC on it? I don't. WP:Spoiler does not support spoiling any and everywhere without good cause, and yet it is used that way." I follow WP:Spoiler, but I do not blindly follow it and treat it like a policy; like all policies and guidelines, adhering to it should be used with WP:Common sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Also notice that I took care not to directly spoil in this section by mentioning her death. You know, for those WP:TV editors who have not watched the show but might want to, and hate being spoiled. My proposal is at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
On a side note: Even though I think it's best not to include huge spoilers unless necessary, I do understand the point that readers should expect spoilers in a plot section or in an article about characters where the sections are mostly plot. And I apologize if I came off as aggressive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the complaints at WP:SPOILER seem to be from anonymous editors, no doubt people who have never read a paper encyclopaedia and expect this to be like imdb, tv.com or other fansites. That we've had an issue at one article doesn't indicate that opposition is widespread. Nearly 900 pages link to WP:SPOILER so it clearly has been widely discussed. That many editors treat it so seriously just demonstrates that there are enough editors out there who understand that in order to be an encyclopaedia we have to treat subjects neutrally and not concern ourselves with whether or not something that is publicly available might upset somebody. When it comes to spoilers people can be completely irrational. I was once abused by (ironically it seems) a girl because I happened to mention that in Titanic the ship hit an iceberg. That was two weeks ago.
"First of all, it is a guideline, not a policy." - What you're proposing to add to the guideline comes from an essay, which has even less authority, so your argument is less than consistent. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I know when to spoil and when not to spoil, and I am not basing those thoughts on a lone case or simply on the complaints of less experienced editors at the guideline talk page. I am basing those thoughts on experience and what I consider common sense. Of course, you and I, or some other editors, won't always agree on when to spoil; not agreeing on a rule happens all the time here at Wikipedia. And such matters are often settled at the article's talk page, especially if it's just a guideline instead of a policy. WP:Policies and guidelines is clear that "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules and that "policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." It links to WP:Common sense, an essay, just like I did above. And what it states is how I edit here. I've made my case in the RfC, where some experienced editors agree with me. No matter what happens with the outcome of that RfC, I am certain that the WP:Spoiler guideline will eventually be changed so that it is clearer that it's not okay to place spoilers any and everywhere just because certain people interpret that guideline as a license to needlessly spoil. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I write a lot of summaries and use this as a guideline for short summaries. Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Spoilers. One editor insisted naming the murderer at the end of each SHORT summary of a detective series. My take is if you wish to add the murderer of other spoiler, an episode article should be created. REVUpminster (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Since the murderer is part of the plot summary, adding the name seems reasonable. This is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite. People coming here should expect to be spoiled and if they aren't, they really need to visit a library and ask to see an encyclopaedia and a fan magazine so they can compare the two. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
REVUpminster, I don't agree with your take that "an episode article should be created," but you should weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler#RfC: Proposal to make unnecessary spoiling clearer in the guideline. There, you can help form a change when it comes to how we include spoilers. I'm hoping for a reasonable compromise between those who like or love to spoil, or don't mind spoiling, and those who are more conservative about spoiling. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Revivals

I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on how revivals ("event series") should be treated since there's so many of them nowadays. As in, is a "revival" series officially a part of the original series, or is it a separate entity. For example, Heroes and Heroes Reborn are being treated separately; Reborn is not counted in Heroes' season/episode count or its original run and is just listed in the related show field. Is this the best way to go, or should it be a case-by-case basis depending on the series and editors of that article. Or, do we develop an overall consensus that a revival is officially part or not part of the original series. I'm mainly taking about this should be handled in the infobox. Other examples: 24 and The X-Files both treat their revival runs as part of the original series, unlike Heroes. Any thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say case-by-case. Depends on the separation and how the network is treating this. If the revival starts with an advertised season 1, for example, it is a strong indication the network considers it separate from the original. See Doctor Who for a weirder example. Judgment call as to how to best present info to the readers. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree with a case-by-case situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think they should all be treated separately – for all practical purposes, they are all different productions than the original series – and we should ignore this silly "X-Files (season 10)"-type stuff. But I suspect my position won't be the consensus one... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I also think case-by-case is the best approach. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Depends on whether the parent article covers the media franchise. In most cases it does, and lists "revival series" in the infobox. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed on case-by-case. Heroes Reborn was not referred to as Heroes Season 5, but the X-Files revival was referred to as The X-Files Season 10. Doctor Who is another separate case entirely... Alex|The|Whovian? 22:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Disney La Chaîne

An article that is part of this wikiproject, Disney La Chaîne —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spshu (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 August 2015‎ (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dual Survival season articles

The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 articles have been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the articles should explain why.

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

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

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

Are Hollywood.com bios considered a "reliable source"?

Are Hollywood.com bios considered a "reliable" enough source to be used for article referencing? I ask because I'm looking at their bio for Haley Tju, and it's riddled with errors (e.g. incorrect dates), so I'm thinking if they're considered reliable now, maybe they shouldn't be... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussions at RSN and older RSN were inconclusive about this. They look to be a news aggregator more than an originator and fact checker. Who knows where they get their info, they don't seem to say. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Tju has a New York Times filmography, but it's less complete than the Hollywood.com one; however the NYT bio does at least confirm a birthdate. In any case, I think my advice would be – if you can replace a Hollywood.com bio references with something else (like the NYT), do so! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
When in doubt, I tend to err on the side of no. Sources should have established reputations for fact-checking. Also if a site doesn't indicate who's running it, or who the editor is, or things like that, it makes me uneasy. And since BLPs must be impeccably sourced, using non-impeccable source should be avoided. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hollywood.com is a former owner of Baseline. At the bottom of the page, it also says "MOVIE, TV, AND CELEBRITY DATA PROVIDED BY AND IS THE COPYRIGHT OF BASELINE". So, my guess is that they're licensing the data from Baseline, much as The New York Times (another former owner of Baseline) does. I have no clue why there might be a discrepancy between the two sites if they're using the same database, though I know the NYT also sources data from AllMovie. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Should list of characters articles be deleted if they cannot be secondary sourced?

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key (company) visual novel character lists regarding discussion on whether list of characters articles can be deleted if they are not secondary sourced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Regional Emmy notability

Is a Regional Emmy enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 for a local broadcaster? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Frasier

I've listed User:Bernstein2291/WikiProject Frasier which was a 2007 temporary page for a proposed WikiProject Frasier. I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Cheers task force covers both Cheers and Frasier (is that task force active?) so please offer any suggestions about whether the userspace draft should be kept or moved here or whatever if there's interest in it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Listing of credits

Typically we list credits with "and"/"&", as they're listing in the series. What do we do when the names are listed one after the other without either "and"/"&" (i.e. they're each on a separate line)? Typically, we don't list any credits with line breaks unless its {{TeleplayStory}}. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably list it as "Name 1, Name 2" or "Name 1 [line break] Name 2". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel it worth mentioning that MOS:& says "In normal text and headings, the word and should be used instead of the ampersand (&)" but provides an exemption for tables saying "Ampersands may be used with consistency and discretion in places where space is extremely limited (i.e., tables and infoboxes)". I'm aware of the use of "&" for writing teams but it is not explained anywhere in articles in which it is used and most readers probably aren't aware of this at all. That MOS:& says it may be used in tables makes the use for writing teams ambiguous at best. It's acceptable to write "Tom, Jerry, Fred, Wilma & Jeff" when listing names and it doesn't mean that Wilma & Jeff are a team. It's just normal English. How to list names in the tables really depends on the names. If they're short, (e.g. Tom Smith) then names can be listed without line breaks, but long names (e.g. Rajesh Koothrappali), adding a line break may help, so as to reduce the overall width of the column. I found one article yesterday where the "written by" column was 3 times the width of the episode title. It's really all about harmonising the column widths and the number of rows that they occupy, so whatever fits best. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Also if there are a lot of names, you could always list them by last name after first mention to minimize the column width, as is typically done with album track listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Long-term abuse by IPs - Cartoon category and template spamming - FYI

FYI I filed an ANI regarding long-term abuse by IP addresses spamming categories and templates on cartoon pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long-term_abuse_by_IPs_-_Cartoon_category_and_template_spamming. If you know of any other addresses, please let me know. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

List of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. episodes

Normally, our guidelines would suggest that List of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. episodes should be merged back into The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. article, as "single-season TV series shouldn't have separate 'List of [series] episodes' articles". But the latter article is already pretty long, and indeed is a Featured article(!), which would suggest leaving the situation as it. So, is this a WP:IAR situation, where we should leave things as they are? Or should the episode list be merged back to the main TV series article even in this case?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

With only 37KB of readable prose, which is below WP:SIZERULE's "Length alone does not justify division" 40KB guide, The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. is not all that long and the episode list can easily be accommodated in the article without any problems. The "episodes" section of the main series article already has an episode table that is just missing the episode summaries, and that is using raw table code, so all that would be added is the summaries themselves. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

While I'm thinking of it, is there a comprehensive list of WP:TV FAs and GA somewhere? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, got it on my own: Category:FA-Class television articles and Category:GA-Class television articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move discussion

This is just a reminder that there is an open requested move discussion at Talk:TBS (U.S. TV channel)#Requested move 25 February 2016 that requires more editor input. Any and all input would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Episode table

There is now a script to convert the raw-code episode table headers for television series to {{Episode table}}, found here. Instructions on the page. Alex|The|Whovian? 08:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Episode count dispute

There is a dispute over episode count at Talk:Best Friends Whenever#Episode count. Could participants of WikiProject Television please weigh in? Thank you. —Lowellian (reply) 02:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to our April event

You are invited...

Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trouble finding references? The Wikipedia Library is proud to announce ...

Alexander Street Press is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online" collection includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (notably shows like 60 minutes), music and theatre, lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. The Academic Video Online: Premium collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more details see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership with The Wikipedia Library.

To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"Original run"

What exactly is this term on infoboxes supposed to mean? Is it the dates where the episodes were premiered on television (i.e. no reruns), or is it the "original" run of episodes that most television viewers remember (in other words, no episodes "burned off" afterthoughts or leftovers on different channels later on)?

It seems the Firefly (TV series) article follows the latter concept, listing the series original run as being in 2002 on Fox only (not including the episodes burned off in 2003 on the Sci-Fi channel). But the Invader Zim article seems to follow the former idea, chosing to included the episodes burned off in 2006 on Nicktoons Network as part of the "original run". Which is more correct?--2601:980:8000:3F82:D4C:2C8:81E3:5371 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: In-universe name details of fictional characters, in article leads (concerning fictional characters as article subjects generally).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

List of television programs based on films

I am requesting more eyes on List of television programs based on films which I think could really use the additional attention. There has been a semi-long-running dispute over there over, 1) whether to include an 'Upcoming' section at the article (personally, I'm against it, and what's happening now is proof positive of why I am against it...), and 2) what should be included in the list assuming that such entries are properly sourced. Right now we have a very determined IP who keeps adding 'Upcoming' entries over there, even for stuff in "pre-production" even though a couple of us have made clear at the Talk page that only in production entries should be included. So more experienced eyes over on this page would be a welcome relief, as I really don't want to do it by myself, and am about to give up and take the page off my watchlist. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

FYI - Edit filter request for long-term ip vandalism

FYI, I requested an edit filter to address the UK user who likes to vandalize dates on various cartoons and UK station pages. You can find the request here. Pinging Cyphoidbomb and AussieLegend as I think they've encountered this person before. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also AlexTheWhovian. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Episode counts revisit

An editor has opened a discussion regarding episode counts at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Episode count in TV show franchise articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Applying WP:TVCAST to an LoC page - re: episode counts of cast

I recently removed episode counts of cast from Pretty Little Liars (TV series) ([14]) and List of Pretty Little Liars characters ([15]), as stipulated in the WP:TVCAST guideline, which states that the number of episodes each actor/actress appears should not be reported. I also mentioned this at Talk:Pretty Little Liars (TV series)#About episode counts of cast, explaining the removal. One editor is not completely sure of whether this applies to list of characters pages and decided to restore the counts on that page [16]. My interpretation of the guideline, based on the discussion that I cited from the Television project talk archive, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 5#Addendum to the Cast section, is that it applies to all articles about TV series. I also made clear that according to that discussion, reliable sources are required for these tallies. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't understand how editors can claim that a part of the MOS only applies in certain articles when whatever those certain articles are supposed to be have never been specified. It's really very simple, if applicable articles are not specified, then the guideline applies everywhere. Would these editors, after being arrested for speeding, try to argue in court "there was no speed limit sign so I wasn't required to keep below 200mph"? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Problematic IP editor

Can someone keep an eye on 90.220.46.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I can't figure out whether some of these edits are correct or not, as I don't spend much time on television-related articles. However, he's definitely blanking some sourced content, as in this edit, where he changes the sourced launch date of A&E. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Episodes list table converter script?

I could have sworn that I saw someone around mention the existence of a script that will automatically convert non-templated episodes list tables to the templated version – Does such a thing exist? Or did I make it up? If it does exist, where can I track it down? (I've been converting a lot of these lately, so a script to expedite converting these without me having to do it manually would help me, a lot!) TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: Do you mean episode table header rows, from raw code to {{episode table}}? If so, yes, that was me. The script's documentation is here. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: Just to clarify, it just does the table header, but not the whole episode table, correct? Because the one I just converted at Jesse (TV series) wasn't even using the {{Episode list}} template, let alone the {{Episode table}} header template! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
That's right, it doesn't convert to {{Episode list}}, just {{Episode table}}. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I've cobbled together a crapton of regex rules for AWB that help turn wikitables into {{Series overview}} or {{Episode table}}. Not great but if someone's interested I will share it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I've made JS scripts for both of these already, but I'd definitely be interested in seeing what you came up with using regex. Alex|The|Whovian? 23:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Episode count in TV show franchise articles

We should episode count on TV show franchises pages, not in season pages if that makes any of you feel better. Episode count in franchise pages, like NCIS franchise, Chicago franchise, Law & Order franchise and such, should have episode appearance count because cast members can intertwine in different shows. Like what you see in Chicago shows you'll see main characters from Fire, P.D. and Med appear in different Chicago shows as guest stars many times before. Some main characters in those franchises sometimes never appear in that episode for storyline reasons and other reasons, despite the fact they are credited in the episode they didn't appear in. All the more reasons to have episode appearances count in franchise pages. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: Continuation/revival of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Episode count in TV show franchise articles. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I want the ones whom I previously invited on here. @StewieBaby05:, @Davejohnsan:, ‎@AdamDeanHall:, @Onyou45:, ‎@74thClarkBarHG:, @Brianis19: and ‎@RaySwifty16:. I want everyone who does TV editing on there also and that this meeting to last until both sides are satisfied. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm all for episode counts however I don't agree with only listing episodes they appear in and not ones they are credited in. There was a fantastic episode list on the chicago franchise that listed the episodes they appeared in in each show. However I like to include all episodes an actor is credited in, even if they don't appear in some. ‎@RaySwifty16:
Episode counts should not be used. Being a "franchise article" doesn't give it a special exception. You can use prose to describe the episodes a certain actor appeared in if that's notable. But just stating that Actor A is starring on Chicago Fire, but has appeared on P.D. in a guest role is sufficient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with RaySwifty16. The episode list on Chicago franchise was fantastic when it listed the episodes the characters on that franchise appeared in in each show until AussieLegend removed it in a rather premature way. We should include episode count in franchise pages since any characters would appear as guest stars in the shows that are connected to the franchise.
Favre, A lot of actors in the Chicago franchise guest stared in different Chicago shows and they did so more than any other franchise out there. Franchise articles should have a special exception because there are a characters who are regular in one show then guest star in another show that is connected to the franchise. Some editors see that information relevant while others like you and AussieLegend waste time, derailing important information about how many episodes many characters appeared in their respective franchises and not listening to reason to those who see the importance of that content. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It's all trivial information. That's why TVCAST was amended to remove this. If you find that info relevant, go to a fan wiki. You can easily notate how an actor appears in the franchise with the {{CMain}}, {{CRecurring}} and {{CGuest}} templates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Write it up in the prose for the character. If they have a recurring role in a second series in the franchise, that's easily its own paragraph. If it is a one-time guest role, that can be a paragraph as well and grouped with the other series. For example: "(character) has appeared regularly as a guest in the (second series). In (episode), character does ...., In (episode), character does ... In (episode), character is credited but doesn't have a speaking role / seen in the background. " If you want to note the number of appearances, put it there and then be prepared to cite every individual episode's credits. 6 appearances = 6 cite episodes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
AussieLegend removed it in a rather premature way - I didn't remove the episode counts until 4 months after the rather lengthy discussion ended, and almost 5 months after the MOS was first modified, so I can't see how that was premature. At NCIS (franchise) we replaced the unencyclopaedic episode counts with indications of which actors had appeared in other series,[17] which is what Favre1fan93 is suggesting. That's really all that is needed in the table. If you want to do that at Chicago (franchise), I can't see any reason for anyone to object, but episode counts really don't add anything on their own. Tables are supposed to be supplemental to prose, they shouldn't replace it. If there is a need to highlight appearances in other series the prose should explain this, as AngusWOOF has suggested. The reader shouldn't be left to interpret the table on their own. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest instead of just listing who was a main, recurring or guest cast member for each show to list who was a main, recurring or guest cast member for each season of each show. I think that would be more informative without being trivial since there are some characters in some franchises that go from being main characters from one show to being main characters in another. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe. But that would be an issue in some franchises. The Chicago franchise is notable for having characters who are main characters in one show guest star in a different Chicago show multiple times. That would become a factor without such information of how many times they appeared in the entire franchise. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: What do you think of this issue. The Chicago franchise, maybe the other franchises, will need some exception about episode appearances or something like since the Chicago franchise is notable for reasons above. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
They don't need an exemption, especially in the case of Chicago. It is far more encyclopaedic to explain the appearances, that characters from all the Chicago series regularly crossover, sometimes in a significant way, for example in the most recent episode of Chicago Fire when Trudy Platt from Chicago P.D. got married, and sometimes in a trivial way, such as in the most recent episode of Chicago Med when Kim Burgess from Chicago P.D. appeared briefly, like an extra. This is far better than:
Series Character Number of episode appearances Actor Duration
Franchise Universe Total franchise
episodes
Fire P.D. Med SVU
Chicago P.D. Kim Burgess 10 56 2 1 69 Marina Squerciati 2014–
Trudy Platt 16 55 70 Amy Morton 2014–
That tells the reader nothing. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned, you could format the table like this:
Series Character Appearances Actor Duration
Franchise Universe
Fire P.D. Med SVU
Chicago P.D. Kim Burgess Recurring Main Guest Marina Squerciati 2014–
Trudy Platt Recurring Guest Amy Morton 2014–
And that would be acceptable, and give the reader appropriate information regarding how each character appeared on each series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Since I was pinged specifically, I agree with everything said above by Aussie, Favre, etc. (if one were to look at my recent contribution, they would see I'm still removing episode counts from Grimm). Episode counts provide nothing of use to an editor or a reader, whereas their status/role (Main/Recurring/Guest) does. So a character has appeared in one more episode than another character? And she's appeared in more series than him? It doesn't matter. An example of a well-laid-out cast table for a shared universe/franchise is at Arrowverse#Shared cast and characters. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend:, @Favre1fan93:, @AlexTheWhovian: Okay, here's the drill. I gotta revert the table back into place and change it to main, recurring and guest list. So do not revert it since I'm gotta work on changing it. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Are The New York Times Filmographies/Biographies gone?!

I noticed this yesterday, and was hoping it was just an end-of-the-month thing, but it's happening again today – for example, clicking on [18] used to take you to the Jessica Lucas biography page, but now it's just redirecting to TNYT's regular "movies" page portal. So, are TNYT's Filmographies/Biographies gone?! If they're gone forever, this is going to cause a lot of problems, from having to convert a bunch of current article references to archive links, to robbing us of a vital RS for things like dates and places of birth for actors... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

IJBall and other members of this Wikiproject. There is info here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#NYT film database seems to be gone that may be of use. MarnetteD|Talk 18:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

To follow up on the discussion at WT:FILM, we may be stuck with using Hollywood.com [blech!], as they (claim to) use Baseline, which is the same source that The New York Times used for their Filmography/Bio info... If anyone else has any other resources for this kind of info, esp. actor biography info (e.g. dates and places of birth), please report here! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Listing "guest stars"

I don't have an issue with listing guest stars, or didn't, until I saw this. Only 20 episodes have aired but 136 guest stars are listed, which seems excessive minutiae for a single season. If we had List of NCIS guest stars covering all 13 seasons I'd be surprised to see it survive AfD. I went through the first 5 episodes of the season, listing the guest stars per WP:TVCAST and found 33 in the episode credits, so they seem genuine but at what point do we draw the line? At this stage the guest list is almost as long as the episode table. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've now verified all 20 aired episodes and found that, of the 136 listed guest stars, all of whom were cited, 35 had not actually been credited in an episode. Seven of those are cited in the next episode to be aired. Another 43 guest stars who had been credited were not listed, resulting in 144 actual guest stars for the 20 aired episodes. The question is, should we be listing so many guest stars, and if not, how do we treat the list? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No we should not be listing that many guest stars. A good way to cut this down, as you did, was to look to see who actually received opening credits. Then, out of those, how many actually have "significance". As in, did they have lines, and were they integral to the plot, rather than just a background person a la "Main character: Here Agent Bob, take these results for analysis." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Can guest stars move to the episode list? These can be limited to main guest stars and exclude "Woman #2" roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes – they should probably be included in the episodes list, provided the crediting on the episode supports it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, so to be clear, and my focus is for guest star listings within episode lists themselves, should we be not including roles such as "Woman #2", as AngusWOOF points out? I have scratched my head in the past about some they list as guest stars, particularly with shows on Disney Channel, either because they seemingly don't have many if any lines in the episode (notability), they don't identify the character by its name during the entire episode's dialogue yet identify a character name in the credits (Actor as X - who in the world is X?), or they credit a generic name like the aforementioned "Woman #2" generally seen as co-stars which we normally don't list. Usually, if billed as a guest star, we are to list them and not make a decision based on importance, lest it be original research, but where do we draw the line on what guest stars billed as such should be listed? Some examples of guest star billings, all from Disney Channel shows: from Girl Meets World, "Nathaniel James Potvin as Academic Top Half" [19]; from Stuck in the Middle, "Kay Bess as Woman's Voice" [20]; and from Liv and Maddie, "Shelby Wulfert as Maddie 2" and "Emmy Buckner as Liv 2" [21] (they are credited as guest stars in every episode of that show, though they are considered doubles to the main actress Dove Cameron who portrays both Liv Rooney and Maddie Rooney). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
In NCIS, the actual roles are not listed. The names are just shown after the main cast credits, and before crew credits, so there is no way to work out the role without watching the episode making it essentially OR to determine whether or not Alex Quijano or Winston Story, for example, should be listed. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I do have a problem with these "Guest cast" listings, and believe we should "officially" deprecate them across the TV project. Personally, I usually remove them whenever I see them, at least at the "TV series" level of article. "Recurring cast" listings are fine, but "Guest cast" listings have got to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Template:Infobox television episode states that "Only guest actors in notable roles should be included in the list" for that infobox, and that is the principle I use in general. If the guest actor is in some way notable, relative to the article's scope, then list them (there will obviously be more guest considered notable from an episode at an episode article than at a series-long character list). And if there is an issue over whether a guest is actually notable or not, then discuss it and find consensus for one way or the other. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts re: Category:Mehreen Jabbar's directions

Hey all, came across Category:Mehreen Jabbar's directions today. It's a very oddly-worded category. I get what the guy was trying to do--I believe Mehreen Jabbar has directed films and television series, but the cat is titled very oddly. Directions? Anyone have a suggestion for how to fix this? Maybe by creating two cats Category:Films directed by Mehreen Jabbar and Television series directed by Mehreen Jabbar? Or Category:Media directed by Mehreen Jabbar? Or skipping the cats and creating a navbox? The reason why I'm bringing this up at WikiProject TV, is that I don't see many cats for "Television series directed by X" and am curious how/if there is a standard. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for peer review

I've listed The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise for peer review.

Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ratings table referencing

I don't have very many current scripted shows on my watchlist, but the other day I added citations to unaired episodes in the ratings table at List of Scorpion episodes, then AlexTheWhovian reverted it, saying "Not necessary for the ratings table, since it's already sourced". This is what I said on his talk page: "episodes that haven't aired shouldn't even be listed in the ratings table at all, but especially not without a source. Sure, it's sourced in the episodes table, but it also needs to be cited in the ratings table as well. There's no reason not to. If you have a link to an MOS that says otherwise, I'd like to see it." He suggested I take it here, so I did. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I can see both sides here. It is not necessarily needed as it is sourced above, and it may just clutter up the table (probably not though), but then having them there could help if people jumped straight to the rating section to get ratings information. If an editor wants to add it then I'd say let them, but if you don't particularly want them there then just don't add them. But don't revert someone else when they add them because they can be useful to some people.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 20:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
My take: there's a reason that <ref name="episodetitle1" /> type code exists – I always default to more referencing over less. So, in this case, I'd probably side with you, and against Alex, and the argument that unaired episodes shouldn't even be listed in the 'Ratings' table in the first place is compelling. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware that this is a discussion, not a sides issue. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't mean that to be "pointy" – it's simply that in the "discussion", I basically agree with Musdan77. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Bringing this back around – I think the "most correct" outcome here is simply to remove the unaired episodes from any TV series 'Ratings' tables. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no guideline stating that they cannot be listed, and if the ratings table is formatted correctly, then the title links directly to the source for the episode. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a guideline (as you point out, that's rather what this discussion is about as there isn't...) – unaired episodes haven't aired yet, ergo there are no "ratings" to discuss. The best solution is still to list sourced unaired episodes in the 'Episodes list' but to leave them out of the 'Ratings' table until they air and have sourcing for ratings. Listing unaired episodes twice this way is redundant in any case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
So by that means, you're saying that listing unaired episodes is pointless, meaning they shouldn't be listed in the episode tables either, as "unaired episodes haven't aired yet, ergo there are no "episodes" to summarize". Alex|The|Whovian? 15:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In the episode table, with the exception of the viewers column, the cells are filled, so the unaired episode rows do serve an encyclopaedic purpose. In the ratings table, the only information is the episode title and air date, both of which are already in the episode. table. As such, until the episode has aired and ratings are available, the ratings table rows provide no encyclopaedic content. This being the case, the episode table rows should be included, but the ratings table rows serve no purpose and should be removed. Table rows are easy to add. they don't need to be added weeks in advance. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your input. Of course, I agree with most of what's been said. I'm not sure why this hasn't been brought up here before, but I'm glad it has now. —Musdan77 (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move

List of The Simpsons episodes* has been proposed for renaming. Editors are invited to participate in the discussion, which may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot length script

New script to instantly determine what plot summaries in an episode table are over the 200 word limit per WP:TVPLOT. Someone might find it useful. Found here. Alex|The|Whovian? 00:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: What is it using to count the words? Just wondering because I ran it on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) and it says the first plot is 203 words. But I copied the text (not the wikitext) over to Word Count Tools and it is telling me it is 166 words. Where as Word Counter says it is 150 words. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Really? I ran it on AoS S3 and it said all plot lengths were fine. I'm using the number of spaces (not really any other way to determine the number of words). Alex|The|Whovian? 03:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked it a bit; first plot counted 150 for me (149 spaces = 150 words). Alex|The|Whovian? 04:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
My text editor, which I've been using for many years and which has always been accurate, says 161 words. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
And what editor is that? Alex|The|Whovian? 06:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I use NoteTab, and I'm sure it is accurate because I've compared it to Microsoft Word and several other programs/websites that count words (I never trust just one). The method of word counting can vary. Some counters use pure spaces while others count characters, typically 5-6 per word. The reason for this is "a a a a a a a a a a" (10 characters) and "Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu|Taumatawhakatangi­hangakoauauotamatea­turipukakapikimaunga­horonukupokaiwhen­uakitanatahu" (850 characters), which are both 10 words using space counting, are clearly not the same length. Yes these are extreme examples but examples nonetheless. I suspect Favre1fan93 was using your script at Supergirl (TV series) when he tagged three episodes at 240, 222 and 209 words but they were actually 183, 202 and 190 words, which seems a similar result to that at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3), which does have 149 spaces. Word Count Tools is obviously using character counting, while Word Counter is using the more simplistic space counting. Don't use Word Counter at university or college, whatever you do. It's more suited to primary school. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I tweaked the script a fraction, and it's reporting 184, 202, 190 for the first three episodes of Supergirl. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I used User:Dr pda/prosesize, which is designed to measure the amount of readable prose in an article, to check the first summary and it too said 184 words. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
AussieLegend, yes those initial tags on Supergirl were with the script. After I did that article (because I knew there had been issues), I wanted to check Agents of SHIELD season 3, because I felt those were generally within the limit. That's when the script gave me the over the limit error. Glad it seems you both solved the way to count the words. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated the script, in regards to the request by Favre1fan93 here of determining the lengths of film summaries as well. Same script, same link, but it now determines if a film infobox has been used, and if so, checks the length of all text under any area titled "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", "Summary" or "Plot summary", with 700 as the limit. And if a film infobox hasn't been used, it proceeds with the regular checking of episodes. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

TV Guide bio info?

Is the bio info up at the TV Guide website reliable? It's not sourced to anything like Baseline (as Hollywood.com's bios are), so I am wondering where TV Guide's bio info comes from, and if it can be considered usable as a WP:RS. Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Category clean up recruitment

In continuation of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_22#Category_clean_up_recruitment_-_Category:Lists_of_television_series_episodes I went a step forward and cleaned almost everything in Category:Lists of television series episodes. Still there are at about 60 pages to be fixed. In some cases a new country category may have to be created. Please help! -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Orange is the New Black page cleanup

I've been doing some work on this page and I noticed that the bottom of the production section lists, in prose form. every single character that was promoted to series regular throughout Season 3 and Season 4. This isn't the end of the world, right now, but seeing how the cast list is very long, and considering the series has been renewed through the seventh season, I could see this getting out of hand quickly. Could other editors take a look at it for me. --Deathawk (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding list of episodes that affects this project

Hi all. I've just started a discussion over at Talk:List of South Park episodes after some recent edit-warring between myself and some IPs. The discussion pertains to list of episode articles for series that also have associated films as part of their franchise (The Simpsons and X-Files comes to mind as well) and if the film, which is not an episode, should be included as a row in the series overview template. Please find the discussion here and I hope that you will weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation of List of TV series episodes

This issue of where the disambiguator parenthetical goes came up at Talk:Scream Queens (2015 TV series)#Episode list article and I have started a discussion at WT:NCTV#Disambiguation of List of TV series episodes. Opinions would be appreciated. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Bandwagon the TV Series edits requested

Hi,

I am the owner of what used to be called the Kato Entertainment Center - where Bandwagon is currently being taped. There are a few things out of date with the Bandwagon article and I was wondering if someone could edit it for me please.

Since March of 2014 the host of the show is Tania Cordes, who is also the owner of the Kato Ballroom - Dick Ginn and Tom Goetzinger are no longer hosts. The show is in it's 56 year. The Kato Entertainment Center is now called the Kato Ballroom and attendance is no longer free but costs $5. The show is still being taped and aired and in February of 2016 it reached a Nielsen rating of 4 or a 16% share, up from a 1 rating and 4% share in February of 2014. Between 175-450 people come to dance at Bandwagon each month. The show is filmed the first Monday of every month from 6:30-9:30pm.66.188.196.179 (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Viewership ratings in "comments" section

So is there any consensus on acceptability of ratings listed in the comments section of pages? For example, this one Archived 2016-06-03 at the Wayback Machine for Spongebob. It seems that the person commenting is likely the author of the actual page (both named Mitch), but I find ratings from the comments section dubious at best. Please ping me in replies. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: WP:NEWSBLOG says "Never use as sources the blog comments that are left by readers." Applies here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The only reason I'm questioning this is that it appears the author left the comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: If the comments were written by Mitch Metcalf instead of Mitch Salem I'd be a bit more sanguine about this. In context that looks like the same person but still, why didn't he use his real name there if it is an author reply to a question? Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Geraldo Perez: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ don't know why the name difference. I'll go remove the spongebob ref for now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I've got a question on British English wording here. "Series" often means for Brits what "season" means in the US. The problem is that British usage can be inconsistent, even within the same paragraph, as in this example ... the first sentence talks about an anthology series (i.e. programme), but the last sentence used "series" in the "season" sense (before I changed it to "year"). TV program says: "Series without a fixed length are usually divided into seasons (U.S.) or series (UK)" ... but it's ambiguous to divide a series into several series. So I need another word ... does "year" work? - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Television infobox documentation discussion

There is currently a discussion over at Template:Infobox television regarding the wording of the "location" parameter's documentation. More eyes and opinions from the project are requested to weigh in as it would affect articles. The discussion can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us exterminate this plague

I'm rather unfamiliar with the process, but would it be reasonable/feasible to have ToonZone forums blacklisted? Their (over)use as sources on episode lists is a constant problem. Or is there some other less Draconian method that could be used? Or am I just overreacting? (Yes, the title section is meant to be hyperbolic...) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy as a Soup Sandwich

Could anyone interested comment on this AfD? It's going to get stuck in relisting hell without some more comments. My stance is obviously to remove it, but anyone with access to print sources establishing notability would help as well. TTN (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Canadian television logs (an amazing resource!)

Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Here is a generic citation for the current version of the logs directory (which is unlikely to be updated anyway): [1] Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Television Program Logs". Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. 2016-03-02. Archived from the original on 2016-05-16. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Early releases in other countries

I wanted some inputs and opinions from other uses on an issue. I've been updating The Musketeers/List of The Musketeers episodes for a while now, and it was renewed for a third and final season some time ago. It is a British series, and hence episodes aired in Britain first. However, the third season has given some confusion. It first premiered in Canada on 10 April, and comes out weekly. The entire season was released on Netflix Latin America and U.S. Hulu in April and May. There still isn't a premiere date for the UK.

So, in the UK, 20 episodes have been released. Canada, 24 episodes (to date). America, 30 episodes. How does one deal with episode counts and air dates in a situation such as this? What dates are listed in the infobox and series overview when the series concludes? Alex|The|Whovian? 09:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has created it's own problem with the fixation in infoboxes of not having episodes updated until broadcast. All BBC drama and ITV drama series (except soaps which are never ending) are completed before broadcast. Odd episodes in Britain very occasionally get dropped if an episode impinges on real life events; ie bomb, death, natural disaster. The episode eventually gets shown even if a few weeks late. As for the episode list that would be reflected in the date broadcast but a change of heading to "Country of origin broadcast" might be a good idea. REVUpminster (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The season ends on June 12 in Canada and July 30 in the UK (extrapolated dates). In the infobox of the series' main page, does the final date get listed as April 16 (Latin American, full release on Netflix), June 12 (Canada, country of first airing) or July 30 (UK, origin country)? Alex|The|Whovian? 09:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Some comments on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
As someone who isn't well versed in all the usual rules, etc., surrounding this issue and hasn't put a great deal of thought into it, I would say that the final date is the first airing of the final episode, regardless of which country the series began airing in or was made in. From what you are saying here, it looks to me like April 10 to April 16 would be the date range of first run in the infobox. You would then go into all the details in the broadcast section to clear up any confusion that this may cause. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...

Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon

--Ipigott (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

Hi there, I'm unable to change the IMBD external link for that miniseries. Any help please? Thank you in advance. --Juanito1968 (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Alex|The|Whovian? 02:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Episode counts

WP:TVCAST was amended to reflect that we don't include episode counts. This seems like a way of getting around WP:TVCAST but I was wondering what others thought. The use of infoboxes in List of NCIS characters is questionable. They introduce a lot of whitespace, and I don't really think they are needed for other than main character. Again, I am wodering what others think. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

They shouldn't be listed out like that. What are we now, the NCIS wikia? Appearances can be covered with plot description about the character (ie: "In episode X, this happened to this character"). And that doesn't mean all appearances warrant an episode mention. If readers want to know when a character appeared, they can go to the fan wikia or IMDb. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that list of appearances seems like exactly what we said not to do. And I would be wary of using any infoboxes in an article like this, they should really be saved for separate, individual character articles, I feel. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, once again with the attendance record. I agree it can be covered in prose. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification for WP:NCTVUK - How to disambig seasons by nation

Question

How should we disambiguate TV show seasons by country?

Problem

Currently WP:NCTVUK gives the examples of (U.S. TV series), (Canadian TV series), (UK TV series). The problem is that two of these (US and UK) simply list the country's name as a noun where as Canadian is the adjective form.

Usage is mixed and there does not seem to be a clear norm, but the noun form seems more prevalent. The various Dancing With The Stars shows provide a good example of the issue:

Noun Adjective
Dancing Stars (Austria season 7) Dancing Stars (Austrian TV series)
Dancing with the Stars (New Zealand series 3) Dancing with the Stars (South Korean season 3)
Dancing with the Stars (Thailand season 1) Let's Dance (German season 3)
Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 11) Full House (Armenian TV series)
Danse avec les stars (France season 4)
Let's Dance 1 (Slovakia)
StarDance 3 (Czech Republic)
Proposal

Let's specify that we should use the noun form. I recommend this because (1) it seems to be more common, (2) some countries are rather difficult to put into adjective form ("New Zealander TV series" doesn't sound good, but this website says "New Zealand" is the adjective form), and (3) as this website shows in the case of Niger and Nigeria, the adjectives are the same. Additionally, we don't use "American" or "British" but rather the noun forms U.S. and UK. Also, many TV series use the noun form appended to the end (e.g., The Biggest Loser Australia 2015: Families) as well as international channel titles (e.g., Nick Jr. (Greece)).

I'm honestly open to anything. I'd just like us to choose one so we can be consistent (Thailand or Thai? Greece or Greek?). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

For consistency the noun form look the best as opposed to the mixture currently used so I'd support changing the recommendations to use the noun form for all descriptions. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Infobox image on War & Peace (2016 TV series)

There is an WP:RfC regarding the infobox image on War & Peace (2016 TV series) at Talk:War & Peace (2016 TV series)#RfC on infobox image. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Marvel and DC series

There seems to be some oddities that the articles for Marvel and DC series' take on that are different from the way that regular series/season articles are run. For the DC series', specifically the Arrowverse shows (other than Constantine), they all seem to use a plain logo rather than the regular title card that almost every other television series uses. As for the Marvel series, they all use promotional posters rather than home media releases - yes, they may be identical except for the text, but with every series I've followed (and I follow a lot), they are always updated to reflect the home media release cover arts. Why do these articles run so differently? Alex|The|Whovian? 08:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I think, for the Marvel season articles, we discussed this issue and it was agreed that it wasn't worth changing the image when the artwork is the same. But that was a while ago. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
See this discussion that Adam referenced regarding not updating the image if it was the same. See this discussion regarding the typeface titles being used for Arrow, which the other DC shows (outside of Constantine) most likely just copied for no other reason than they are the same set of shows. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll also add, that while home media covers are generally the way to go, we want the images to be as descriptive and representative of the series as they can be. So if that means a promotional poster is a better fit, that should be used. I don't think we have to be hard and fast with WP:TVIMAGE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
So, would there be any disagreements if an editor decided to update them to the home media covers, and simply requested a rename of the files (rather than uploading new copies)? I know we don't have to stick to WP:TVIMAGE, but personally, I like to stick to routine that the many television articles I've edited run by. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I just saw the images change. The reason that we don't use actual title cards, is because of non-free images. We are supposed to find free alternatives where appropriate per WP:NONFREE. THe images that were on the DC pages are free, because they are not actually taken from the show, but stripped to just basic fonts used from the show (which cannot be copyrighted). THis needs to be returned, because that has been the standard practice across articles for some time flies in the face of NONFREE.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:NONFREE is a guideline, not a policy, and does not need to be adhered to to the letter. The header even states "It is a generally accepted standard [...] and occasional exceptions may apply." For example, it seems that this revert, which was a revert of changing the title card to the logo, seems to have been accepted by the editors of the page and not reverted. Alex|The|Whovian? 11:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Except that WP:NONFREE originates from WP:FUC, which is a policy regarding legal issues. The first item on the list, which every non-free image has to have in the rationale page, is "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - We have demonstrated that there IS a free equivalent for all of these pages. Thus, item #1 is already failed and the image should be changed back to the free equivalent. We're not talking about a poster or DVD cover for a specific season page or episode page, we're talking about 1 image that illustrates an entire series. If you argue that that image is the title card, then there is a free alternative to an actual screenshot of the title card that doesn't lose any significance with readers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You're claiming that the previous logos (File:Arrow TV series logo.png, File:TheFLASHlogo.png, File:Legends of Tomorrow Logo.png, File:Supergirl (TV logo).jpg, File:Vixen (logo).png) were/are free content? Is that why they are all tagged as non-free media? The Arrow logo clearly states that "[b]ecause it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent". Please explain this to clear my initial confusion. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
"Arrow" is a little borderline because of how it is designed, but the others...yes. First, those are not "logos", those are words. You cannot copyright words with basic fonts. That is why File:Smallville 2001 logo.svg this is free. Those are incorrectly labeled as "non-free". Look at File:DC Comics logo.png, or File:Coca-Cola logo.svg. They are free, because you cannot copyright words. You can trademark slogans, but you cannot copyright a visual image of a word. Basic shapes, letters, etc. are copyright free. That is why we remove the background image from TV series title cards, because that is non-free (because it's a screen capture of a copyrighted program), but the text itself once removed from the copyrighted material is FREE. It always has been and always will be free.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I'd say those logos would be fine for the articles. After it was decided that File:Disney Violetta logo.svg qualifies as {{PD-textlogo}}, I wouldn't be surprised if Arrow's logo qualified too, but not sure, that one looks more "complex". On the other hand, plain logos like File:Supergirl TV logo.png do not really help the readers, we could as well not have any image in the article. WP:NFCC#1 states "where no free equivalent is available ... that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose" (emphasis mine), so the way I understand it, there's no problem with using title cards, at least in cases like Supergirl. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) None of them are geometric shapes created by basic and simply words and fonts. They are most definitely all logos, which by definition, is "a symbol or other small design adopted by an organization to identify its products" - these match this criteria. I don't see how you come to the conclusion they are free. If you have non-free media, and remove part of it, it doesn't simply make it instantly free, since that it's original source was non-free. Upon what guideline or policy is this based? First I've ever heard of it said like this. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
They don't seem like {{PD-textlogo}} to me either, though after they decided the logo I mentioned qualifies, I'm not sure. That's still simpler than the examples here though, I guess. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Disney Violetta logo.svg is a straight font. With the exception of File:Supergirl (TV logo).jpg I'd argue that the others are non-free. Shading and effects in the others, like the streak effect in File:TheFLASHlogo.png, and even placement of the lighning bolt in the middle, exceed the threshold of originality. File:Vixen (logo).png is a toss-up. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Does not help the reader? It's a picture of the word "Supergirl". I don't think that the readers are idiots who don't know what they are reading. You're arguing that the addition of a Superman shield (which is copyrighted), is somehow more illuminating for a reader? They already know where they are. NO TV series page needs an image in the infobox. It does not create a better understanding of the page for a reader. That's an argument that has not weight. Thus, using a free image allows for a visual aid (which itself isn't necessary) without going into non-free content laws. If you take this to FUC, I guarantee you that they will all say that you should use the basic "Supergirl" image and not the copyrighted one.
Alex, words can NOT be copyrighted. I just showed you that they aren't. Logos or not, basic words cannot be copyrighted. They are shapes. Letters are shapes. You cannot copyright any letter of the alphabet. GO to FUC, ask them. You will see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to take it there yourself, since you're the one that has the issue on how the articles and logos currently stand. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Words are not the problem. It is how they are presented. commons:File:Last Resort logo.jpg was deleted despite it being mainly text. It was, as can be seen in this only slightly different image, two words with a star between them. The fact that it includes splotches and colouration and some shapes behind stopped it being free and it was deleted after discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The Last Resort I don't think is a fair argument. That was text, yes, but that was still taken directly from a copyrighted work and not cleaned up. For The Flash et. al, those above images were removed from the copyright work to be just words and shapes. The Lighting bolt is just a shape, and not actual symbol on the costumer nor the comic books. Coloring itself is not enough to meet the threshold of originality. DC Legends of Tomorrow is just words. The shading doesn't impact copyright. At best you could argue about the mountain range in the image, but it's not detailed enough to be copywritten. The same for Vixen. Supergirl definitely is just a simple typeface and there is no need for the titlecard with the shield in it. People know what they are looking at. Arrow is the only real borderline image because of the wisps around the letters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Straight colouring is not enough but when there are shading and colour changes like in the Flash logo, these are enough exceed the threshold. The shadow effect and speed streak also exceeed the threshold. The Legends of Tomorrow is text superimposed over a landscape of some sort. It's not straight colour and that's exactly the sort of thing that resulted in the Last Resort image being deleted. It's clearly beyond the threshold. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has already taken place many times over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, and has, as far as I can tell, never actually led to any changes of WP:TVIMAGE (which does still state that we should be using the intertitle specifically). So, if editors such as Bignole have a problem with the MOS as it currently is then I suggest a new discussion be started over there on whether to update/amend the MOS or not. Until then, I think Alex is well within his write to update these articles so that they follow the MOS (especially since there seems to be a whole lot of uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the copyright laws that may affect this issue, while there is certainly nothing ambiguous about "The image presented in the infobox of the main article should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show").
By the way Alex, I know we often use DVD covers rather than posters, but TVIMAGE does specify a poster first, and then "Failing that, a DVD cover may be used." Looking through archived discussions, it appears that this is because a poster is generally ideal (as it is with films), but unfortunately they are often not available, or perhaps not very representative of the series/season as a whole, which was why the DVD cover back-up option was added. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I can accept that. It just seems different to the other season articles I've edited, where it's always updated. The intertitle/logo was the issue I had the biggest problem with, so I'm not overly fazed about the season articles. Anyways, it seems there's a consensus here that title cards can indeed be used (per WP:CON, "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity"), also given that the editors at WP:FUC seem to mostly concur with what has been stated here. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Punctuation, accent differences in credited names

In most articles I edit, the general consensus seems to be to list names as they are shown in the credits, so for example if the credits say "Maria", we would use that even if the WP:COMMONNAME is "María" (and vice versa). Robsinden insists that the MOS takes precedence, citing WP:SPACEINITS for his edits on Annedroids and List of Annedroids episodes. (Previous discussion)

Even if we do not follow the credits, SPACEINTS says "unless ... an overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person". I have not done thorough research, but it seems that most results in a Google search for "J. J. Johnson" director use the unspaced form. – nyuszika7h (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit seems to be selective compliance with the MOS, which says "In article text, a space after [a full stop following] an initial should be a non-breaking space: J.&nbsp;R.&nbsp;R. Tolkien (or use the {{nbsp}} template)." I don't see any non-breaking space. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
That was me being lazy, sorry, but when there are 50+ instances, it's a fair bit of work. However, that doesn't affect the issue, merely a technicality. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Our MOS definitely takes priority in matters of style in order to keep a consistent look throughout Wikipedia. WP:COMMONNAME is a separate issue. The "name" isn't any different, just how it is rendered. If it was rendered in lowercase on the credits, for example, we wouldn't follow that style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The part of MOS:ABBR § Initials that controls here is "The person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name". The way this person chooses his name to appear on official credits is his choice and shows that he has a "consistently preferred style for his or her own name". Wikipedia, in general, likes to reflect how people self-identify as a matter of courtesy, if nothing else. A person's name is a matter of his or her own personal identity and choosing, it is not a composition title to be corrected to match our MOS:CT. See also J.J. Johnson resume at IMDb. That is his official professional name including his way of rendering it and how it should show up on all his credits, including our transcriptions of the credits here on Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Lowercase is kind of a different thing, credits (all of them) may show up stylized as lowercase in a show's credits but not necessarily in press releases and such. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
That is more of a font issue where upper case does not exist in that chosen font. Absent some pretty strong evidence to the contrary we should trust how names are credited as being correct. Opening credits play with this a lot when they present main cast, may need to verify with other sources there. Could also get a case like k.d. lang where that is not a mistake but her preferred stylization. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're totally incorrect. As a general rule, full stops and spaces between initials do not change the name of an individual, and are defined by the MOS of the publication. How they appear on the credits for a TV show or film is not the choice of the individual, but the style of the work in question. How they appear at IMDB is down the house style at IMDB, not the preferred styling of the individual. There is nothing to suggest that the individual has a preferred style in this specific case. No reason to make an exception to WP:SPACEINITS here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
See J.J. Johnson resume at IMDb. That comes from him or his agent and it not reformatted by IMDb. He gets to choose his own name, it is rude to "correct" him. You need to read the whole WP:SPACEINITS, including the section that says "The person had or has a different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name" which is a part of it and is a specific rule that overrides the general rule. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, that does not clearly demonstrate a "different, consistently preferred style for his or her own name", merely that the press agent or whoever happened to type it that way. You would need a source, something akin to this used for JJ Feild in order to override our MOS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Nope, burden's the other way. You need to show that "J.J. Johnson" is not his preferred stylization when everything we have or show him credited in including his own resume shows it that way. This is not in any way a conflict with any part of the MOS. Spaces are the default but easily overridden by consistent usage which has been demonstrated in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. It is your burden to prove that the individual has a preferred style, otherwise we default to our MOS. You seem to be clinging on to the "resume" posted at IMDB, but there's nothing to suggest that it hasn't been edited by IMDB copyeditors to bring it in line with their house style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
And as far as consistent usage goes, a space is clearly in the MOS of The New York Times. Other publications prefer not to use full stops or spaces [22][23][24]. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
See also this edit by Jonesey95, when the WP:GOCE looked at another of his shows. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Signpost WikiProject article

Hello! Would any members of this WikiProject be interested in talking about your work for the Signpost? Please ping me if you'd like to be in an article and describe your work here. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Possibly disruptive edits to a reality TV show

Can someone familiar with reality television take a look at the edits by 72.28.200.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? I reverted these edits to Craig Wayne Boyd, as they removed parts of names from wikilinks, making them link to disambiguation pages. Then I saw the IP editor had edited several articles about The Voice, and I really can't don't know anything about reality television. This edit looks like straight-up blanking, but I have no idea if this edit is true. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I found several edits that broke tables, introduced errors and broke wikilinks. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Monica the Medium episode list

Knowing not a freaking thing about the show in question, I just recently saw that an episode list was removed from the above-named article. Is it standard to have such lists in such articles, or, under some circumstances, perhaps including articles like this, is the article better without them? John Carter (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

John Carter, I don't know anything about the series either, but the removal with the summary "not needed" is very poorly justified. I've reverted and dropped him a note on his talk page inviting him to discuss there or on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting comments/opinions

Hi, I'm looking for some unbiased, uninvolved opinions on the matter here. It has to do with listing a dog as a "main character" of a TV series, Person of Interest. The original discussion happened two years ago, another discussion a year ago, and just recently I decided to bring it up again after an editor made this somewhat problematic edit using poor sources (one of which is a comment from a fan on a message board). The problem here is that listing the dog as being a main cast member is in violation of MOS:TVCAST and is WP:OR, as we follow the credits to determine who is main cast or not. As I stated on the talk page, the dog receives no type of credit whatsoever, and further is not listed as being part of the cast in various external sources: official website, episode press releases, TV Guide, Zap2it, The Futon Critic. From those that participated in the discussion, everyone except one editor agreed with the removal. A valid compromise would be listing the dog as part of one of the main characters bios, or getting some real-world information about the dog and adding it to the production section. Any thoughts/opinions from unbiased or uninvolved editors on this? Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

My quick "drive-by" opinion? – as you say, "Bear" is not credited in the main cast list, therefore he/she(?) is not a main character. Crediting is what ultimately determines "main" vs. "recurring" vs. "guest" vs. "extra"(i.e. unbilled) characters... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relisted move request

Greetings! I have recently relisted requested move discussions at Talk:BeIN Sports Arabia +1#Requested move 14 June 2016 and Talk:BeIN Sports Arabia +2#Requested move 14 June 2016, regarding pages relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  What's in your palette? Paine  13:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Written by" and "Teleplay by" in the same episode

In the Annedroids episode "Friendiversary", the writers are listed in the end credits like this:

  • Written by: J.J. Johnson, Christin Simms & Amanda Spagnolo
  • Teleplay by: Amanda Spagnolo

If I understand correctly, by the WGA's rules the teleplay credit would be redundant, but this is a Canadian show, and they are also using a comma in the credit which is neither "&" nor "and", so I'd say it's probably best to leave it as-is instead of trying to second-guess. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nyuszika7H, I've noticed that more and more Canadian series have separate writing and teleplay credits for certain episodes. Perhaps some guideline regarding this (including possibly adding a template parameter for teleplay credits) would be a good idea. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mdrnpndr: Many U.S. shows have "Story by" / "Teleplay by", but I haven't seen "Written by" / "Teleplay by" before. I guess {{StoryTeleplay}} could be extended for this. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that template before. It will probably come in handy. Thanks for linking to it!
As for your other point, I'm guessing that "Written" was meant as "Story" here, in which case the best thing to do would likely be to just use all of the credits you listed verbatim (as you originally suggested). Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 24#Category:Disney Channel Original Movie films

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 24#Category:Disney Channel Original Movie films. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Recreating a navbox

Last consensus about {{Cartoon Network programming}} considered the template worth nuking, but there seems to be a push for recreating it by some editors. In my sandbox I've tried to align the template with similar navboxes. I made two versions: one alphabetized and one chronological.

While a category could arguably make all programming navboxes redundant, I do think that there's an element of cohesion to a cable network's history of programming that broadcast networks lack (why you'll find all HBO series together, but not CBS). In addition category pages don't provide much in terms of context and presentation, and they don't receive a lot of readership compared to the constituent pages either. Is {{Cartoon Network original programming}} worth recreating? 23W 23:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What has changed since the discussion here that resulted in this template being deleted? --AussieLegend (✉) 00:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It was a huge mess with lots of subgroups that made the whole template nearly a whole screen tall. I've simplified it separating programs by decade. Some categories were spun-off into their own templates ({{Cartoon Network co-productions}}, {{Cartoon Network pilots, films and specials}}). 23W 01:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll see how Electricburst1996, the nominator of the last TfD, likes my revision. 23W 23:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC) Went ahead with resurrection since I don't think this is especially controversial (knock on wood). AussieLegend) 23W 05:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Can you nominate others or is it self-nomination only? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, EvergreenFir. You can add your name there if you like, to see what others think of your chances. You can also review others listed there and give them a score. I'm not sure if this answers your question. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay! So self-nomination only. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, EvergreenFir, I see what you mean. I'm a bit foggy in the morning. I think it is not appropriate to add another person to the poll. You can certainly make others aware of it, though, and they can list themselves. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of episode in TV series

In TV series pages the "No. of Episodes" is a little ambiguous. If it says 6 then is 6 the number of episodes shown to date? or the total number of episodes in the season/series? Would 6/12 be an alternative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.218.249 (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The former. If it displays six, then six have aired to this current day. Episode orders and renewals are typically found in the lead of an article, meaning that 6/12 would be unnecessary in the infobox. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_22&oldid=1149483056"