Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Nomination of Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:RuPaul's Drag Race until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Dubs?

Twist of Fate (2016 TV series) is a dub of Kumkum Bhagya. Do we typically create articles on dubs? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we don't – should be a section at the latter article, and that should be converted to a redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: I've nommed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twist of Fate (2016 TV series). If you (or anyone) want to argue for it to be a redirect, please do. I just don't want someone to undo the redirect, which sometimes happens in these situations. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Once again: listing the episode of appearance for guest cast

Hey Alex 21 – please show me exactly where WP:TVCAST justifies an edit like this? Hmmmm?!

We've been over this already: guest cast appearances that are unsourced (and frankly, even if they are, IMO...) must include the title of the episode that the guest cast appeared in, as per WP:V, because the only thing that verifies their appearance on a TV series is the guest cast credit in the episode itself, as per WP:PRIMARY. Without the episode title, this can't be easily verified (think of a series like L&O:SVU, where you'd have to search through 400+ episodes to find a guest credit!!).

This kind of nonsense is exactly why I generally think 'Guest cast' sections are a bad idea – because too many editors have gotten into their heads that it's "OK" to list guest cast with no other information. If the title of the episode a guest cast appeared in is not listed (certainly if there's no other sourcing), then the appearance is not verifiable, is basically WP:OR, and it should be removed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (6 episodes) or (episodes 1–6), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor or character appeared. The attempt to use the episode title instead of a count is just a loophole that is trying to be exploited. WP:V states nothing about guest cast, but if it does need to be cited, then do so properly and use the correct cite template. (Which I already said to do.)
I don't see your concern for the lack of sourcing in the Recurring section of the respective article, though; this seems very pointed to one specific area? -- /Alex/21 13:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Did it for you. Quite simple, really. Now that there's actual cites, now it conforms to WP:V. -- /Alex/21 13:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Good Lord, Alex – do you understand why "no episode counts" was put into TVCAST?! It's because saying a recurring cast member appeared in "19 episodes" was unverifiable and is thus WP:OR if that info isn't sourced (or if the 19 episodes the actor appeared in aren't actually listed, which for recurring cast they pretty much never are). Putting in the episode (title) that a guest cast appeared in is the exact opposite of that. Do you understand this?! – The former is WP:OR; the latter is the opposite of that: it's WP:V per WP:PRIMARY. IOW, the latter is actually required as per site policy... To be clear – a MOS guideline can not "trump" WP:V, which is a site policy.
Now, you've changed these all to inline cites – on that issue, I don't particularly care, though I will say that I don't think they have to be inline cites: they could just be like I had them, or they could be inline sites: just one, or the other – it doesn't matter, as long as the episode title info is there for the guest cast listed (as per WP:PRIMARY). --IJBall (contribs • talk)
If you could be a bit calmer, that would be appreciated. No need to get worked up over this...
I could put that Bob SoAndSo appeared in ThisAndThat episode as (in "ThisAndThat episode"), when perhaps he wasn't. That doesn't satisfy WP:V. It's just more unsourced prose. Nevertheless, it is still an attempted loophole, and thus actual cites should be used. Third-party cites are even better. WP:V still states nothing about guest cast in a television series, so it;s up to interpretation and how you personally apply the policy to the situation at hand. On another note, if this discussion was pinged directly towards me per your original post, why was it not correctly taken to the talk page of the respective article? -- /Alex/21 13:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious?! "I could put in a fake citation, which wouldn't satisfy WP:V"... Uh, whatever. WP:PRIMARY sources still count – they still satisfy WP:V. The fact that some editors will falsify cites has nothing to do with that – the cites are there so that other editors can try to verify the info (if the cites are proven to be fraudulent, they are simply removed, probably along with the info associated with it). A lack of cites means the info is totally unverifiable, and can be challenged and removed. So putting any kind of citation is still better than not putting a cite... And you know exactly why I brought this discussion here – because the correct way to handle guest cast is directly relevant to the entire WikiProject Television: this discussion goes far beyond how to handle this issue at just The Rookie. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, if you could be a bit calmer, that would be appreciated. No need to get worked up over this... Maybe you need a step away from this to take a calming breath.
Put simply, prose is not a cite. A cite is a cite. A source is a cite. You cannot source and back content up through itself. I could put "The series has been renewed for a second season", and claim that this text is a cite, the very content of the renewal is, just as "Bob appears in ThisEpisode" was listed as supporting itself. No. It needs an actual source, an actual cite. The content now includes cites, meaning I have sourced the content as you were attempting to do.
If that were the case, it would be addressed to the entire WikiProject Television, and the very first words wouldn't have been "Hey Alex 21". -- /Alex/21 13:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll stress the need for a proper cite from another angle: over at WP:ITN many television and films actors who are nominated for Recent Deaths have problems because their filmography and tv appearances sections are not sourced; We are generally okay if the actor is clearly in a starring role, but anything less should be sourced, and thus sourced on TV episode or season pages is critical. --Masem (t) 14:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Agree with IJBall and Masem. "Shawn Christian as Jeremy Hawke" tells us nothing. You can't expect people to watch every episode until they find where Shawn Christian was credited. By that logic, we shouldn't source anything. "Oh, a series was renewed? We'll just state that, but won't source it. Editors can find it." Technically, we should list episodes for recurring sections as well, but since those would get long if they recur in, say, 50+ episodes, it would just be "messy" formatting at that point. MOS:TVCAST, like many things, is a guideline. This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Bold emphasis mine. And there it makes sense to list the episode titles in which they appear; it is not a loophole, but rather following WP:VERIFY, which is a policy. The other option would be to have the guest stars listed in the summaries, so we can have something to go off of for each episode, but of course that won't be happening there. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I would partially disagree. Tediously listing every single episode a guest, recurring or not, appears in just becomes trivial. It's one thing to say a character appears throughout the third and fourth season of a show, or has a recurring arc in season five. It's another thing entirely to start needlessly listing every episode appearance is if they were all important to note by name. It's important when you're referencing an event for context. In a basic "they appeared in these episodes", that goes against what the MOS was trying to say, because the reason we put that in there was also because IMDB already does that. You go to the IMDB page and you see the list of every episode they appear in. We don't need to replicate that, because it isn't essential to the reader. In all fairness, most regular guest stars are not noteworthy enough to list. I don't know how or why we got into the habit of listing every guest (that we deem important simply because of who they are). Again, we're not IMDb and often times it appears we give preferential treatment to name stars, which we shouldn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bignole: I actually agree with you here: I don't know how or why we got into the habit of listing every guest (that we deem important simply because of who they are). We shouldn't list every single non-recurring guest star. We of course list all main cast, followed by recurring cast—those with five or more appearances—followed by notable guest stars. Notable guest stars include those who receive a special guest star credit and then anyone else people can agree is notable. The latter would include main cast from one series guest starring on another on the same network group of networks. For example, if Meg Donnelly from American Housewife guest stars on an episode of Single Parents, that makes her notable since both are ABC sitcoms. If Milo Manheim guest stars on an episode of Single Parents, he is also notable since he is main cast Disney Channel's Zombies, and ABC is part of Disney. Add: By doing that, we limit it so we're not listing every single non-recurring guest star. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
For purposes of quality at ITN (which I know is not the goal here but hear me out), IMDB is not reliable. It fails WP:USERG even though we know the moderators there try to keep things in check. --Masem (t) 20:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
That's basically a separate question: Should we list "guest cast" at all? – IMO, the answer is sometimes yes, and sometimes no... But that's not the question at hand – the question at hand is: If guest cast is listed, and a guest cast listed not sourced to a secondary source, do you at least need to list the episode title of the guest appearance (either inline, or in prose) to make it verifiable as per WP:V? – To my mind, there is no possible answer but: "Yes, of course you do!" And if people are somehow reading the "no episode counts" in MOS:TV as a reason to not do this, then it needs to be made crystal clear that it's not the same thing at all, and "no episode counts" does not mean that guest cast shouldn't still be made verifiable by listing/citing the episode they appeared in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I've seen easily half a dozen show pages with no cites for guest cast at all, let alone what episode any of them was in. And frankly, except for recurring guests, I don't care. This lists any number of actors who made all of one appearance on the show, many of whom nobody's ever heard of. Why do I care? That kind of mention might fit the actor page, but not the show page. For "Emergency!" or "Ironside", it gets absolutely crazy, & for "Dragnet" or "Gunsmoke", you have to be joking (even if you can source, & have sourced, all of them). Which moves me to wonder if the guideline, if not the actual policy, needs revising to limit to recurring only--& even then, "recurring" needs to be more than twice in the same role. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd oppose any change that limits all guest mentions. Some guest appearances are very notable, such as Christopher Reeve appearing on Smallville, as he was the original Superman and that is something that is worth mentioning. --Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Listing virtually every guest cast that ever appeared on a show, esp. if completely unsourced, would certainly run afoul of both WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE and would surely be ground for removal. I will admit – if seen flavors of that, esp. in articles for TV shows from the 1950s and 1960s, and while I haven't removed those guest lists myself, it would certainly be justified to remove them... So this gets to the whole concept of figuring out what makes a "notable guest star" (as opposed to just a "run of the mill" guest star) – and, for that, the most obvious "test" of notability is whether the guest appearance got secondary coverage (that can be cited), or (IMO) whether the guest appearance got "special billing" from the production (e.g. "Special guest star"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Masem, IMDB is unreliable, but we've all generally agreed that for past film/tv credits, it's pretty reliable. We only ever worry about future stuff, because even the IMDb administrators can very a film/tv that's aired. Either way, the point was not about IMDB being reliable, it was that IMDB, TVGuide.com, and many other non-encyclopedic websites carry these indiscriminate lists. I don't like having this "notable guest stars", because you get into a funny corner where that's in the eye of the beholder and next thing you know you have a list of 50 guest stars, and maybe 5 of them are actually notable.
My point is that guest star lists are almost every time going to be indiscriminate lists because they are too hard to police to just "notable appearances", and the MOS would end up being too much of a micromanage of pages. I'd rather see prose content explaining the context of a guest actor's inclusion on the page. It's not hard to understand the inclusion of Reeves (though he was classified as a recurring guest), because with prose context a reader can understand he was the Superman they based the style and philosophy of Smallville around. He was the Superman people strived for. But including Amy Adams in the list of Smallville guests simply because she's famous now doesn't make sense to me. That's what I see happening across Wikipedia. It becomes revisionist history because we see the importance of the actor today versus the importance of the role on the show. Most true guest stars are not essential to the shows they appear on. If they were, they'd probably be more than a guest (notice I said "most" and not "all").
Back to the original argument though, I still don't think listing every episode title is appropriate. I do feel it's a way of wiki-lawyering around the MOS which says not to include the number of episodes a character has appeared in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
We're not talking about "recurring" cast – we're talking about 1 or 2 appearance "guest stars". And, again – the reason we removed "episode counts" is because they're generally unverifiable, not because they are "messy" (and if that's the argument being used to keep it on the MOS:TV, I'll quickly reverse course and support its removal from the MOS). But MOS:TV cannot "supersede" a site policy like WP:V – so it doesn't matter if somebody here thinks this is a "loophole" around MOS:TV: WP:V is far more important, and if no other sourcing is available, then an episode title must be listed as per WP:V and WP:PRIMARY. Period. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
♠I don't object at all to something like Chris Reeves' appearance. That's kind of a special case. (In that vein, I'd include the "stunt casting" of Linda Blair on "Supernatural", & maybe James Marsters on "Smallville" {tho maybe the "Everybody knows vampires aren't real, Clark" is biasing my judgment ;p ).
♠I've also seen pages where the list of guest stars is a virtual laundry list, & that's even after limiting (or trying to limit) to "famous" guest stars. (And a limit to "famous then" demands a knowledge of the subject, & the performer, I daresay the average editor will not have, even with sourcing of the appearance.) Some shows, especially older ones, attracted one-shots by people who became famous later. So, if we're going to keep one-shots, how do we decide? I defy you to write a guideline that will cover it; it's bound to have some subjectivity.
♠I'm not advocating for a complete deletion, tho that's looking like the best, & least-fraught, option, precisely because of the "big later" factor: there's interest for readers in knowing (frex) Joan Collins did "STTOS". ("The City on the Edge of Forever", for those not Trekkers. ;p ) I'm loath to have that lost.
♠I come back to my original position: these one-shot appearances seem better handled by the actor's page than the show's, so maybe we should delete entire & make that the standard.
♠Beyond all that, if I'm not already on both sides of the argument, ;p IMO adding the episode title is neeless overkill, even on the actor page (MOS or no); what most readers will want is, "Was she in it?", or "How often was she in it?", not "What episode was she in?"--not least because, unless you're already a fan, the title means nothing anyhow. (Cf Joan Collins: does knowing the episode title alone add anything, without looking under the link?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Two points: 1) you're making an assumption that "most readers don't want to know what episode they appeared it", which I think is absolutely not the case, esp. in this day and age with Netflix and Hulu where people can call up a specific episode of a TV series with ease, and 2) "what readers want" is actually quite besides the point in this case – from WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable... any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." That's what we're talking about here – no secondary source and no episode title = "unverfiable". If editors don't like an "in-text" episode cite, then they are free to do what Alex did at The Rookie and make them inline cites. Now, while I don't think inline citation style is "necessary", one way or the other all guest cast must be sourced to something – either a secondary media coverage source, a press release on the episode, or the episode title itself (which cites the episode's credits and cast list, as per WP:PRIMARY). There are no other options on this: it's either source 'Guest' cast (somehow), or they can (and should) be removed. P.S. To be clear, the same applies to actor WP:FILMOGRAPHY sections – a Filmography 'Note' that says "1 episode" doesn't cut it; it's needs to be "Episode: "The Hawke" for the same verifiability purposes; that's also why in Filmography tables, "Recurring role" isn't enough – it needs to be "Recurring role (seasons 1–2)" for similar reasons. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
♠And I think you're confusing (or conflating) "editor" & "reader". Verifiable means damn all to the causal reader, who isn't going to be taking the trouble to confirm the sourcing anyhow, absent actually going to Hulu or somewhere & watching the episode. (I also think you're overstating the ubiquity of usage, but that's another issue.)
♠I'd consider myself fairly average for a TV page reader (actually above, since I look for cast members & show dates where most probably don't). I've never missed not having the show title for a guest appearance, & I frequently ask myself why it's of any value on pages where I do see it. I've never felt a need to verify the claim.
♠I never defended unsourced adds, common though they remain, especially on bio pages, so your rant on verifiability, & citation, is wasted on me.
♠IMO, the best way to get to your demand for both a list of every actor & episode title, & cites, is to break out the guest cast to a "List of guest cast" page for every single show.
♠IMO, comparing a TV guest spot to a film is inapt, since films, by their nature, are one-shots, so inclusion makes sense--& even at that, listing actors with no WP page in uncredited, non-speaking roles is overkill (tho that is something I've seen, too). Even listing actors with WP pages in such small roles is pretty borderline, without some overriding reason (like a debut). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 15:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:V has nothing to do with inclusion. Verifiability policy is about the need to be able to show that the information is supported by a source. It does not guarantee the information SHOULD be included though. As a matter of fact, WP:ONUS specifically says "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article." I'm not talking about saying, "Christopher Reeve made his first appearance on 'Smallville' in the episode "Rosetta", and subsequently appeared two more times across season two and three." is somehow a problem. It isn't. I'm saying this is a problem: "John Smith appeared in episodes "Title 1", "Title 24", "Titled 25", "Title 40", etc.
We have multiple issues that are being argued here. First, sourcing a guest star. You have to source, period. That's not an argument. Whether you source by a reliable secondary source, or if you source the episode itself, is irrelevant. You said, "their appearance on a TV series is the guest cast credit in the episode itself, as per WP:PRIMARY." PRIMARY doesn't say that, PRIMARY just defines what a primary source is. You can verify a guest appearance through a secondary source (in fact Wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources). Whether they include the episode title or not isn't actually important so long as they are reliable. If you use a primary source then yes, citation template for "cite episode" should be filled out so that we know where it comes from.
The second argument turned into whether we should have guest lists at all. My stance is, no, we shouldn't have guest lists. Recurring sure, but not regular guests, whether they are "special" or not. No regular guest list should exist. It's just an indiscriminate collection of usually one or two time appearance people. Not essential to understanding the show. Now, here is where I would draw the exception. Those "special" guests people like to talk about should be identified in prose (not a list) that includes context as to why they are noteworthy. Everyone keeps saying "notable guest stars" without ever actually arguing how they are notable beyond apparently their fame in real life. As time goes on, older actors become less "notable" to younger generations, so without context this opinion based "notability" for inclusion becomes weaker and weaker.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The most obvious definition of a "notable" guest star is one that received (substantial) coverage in secondary media sources, etc. When I say "notable", that's generally what I'm thinking of... The rest of what you say, I don't disagree with much, as you do seem to agree that in the absence of a secondary source, then using the episode (and thus its title) as the primary source is correct, and that this is a necessary thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've never advocated for "listing of every guest actor" (I've just noted that it does happen at some articles for older TV series) – far from it, as I agree with Amaury that if 'Guest' cast is going to be included, it should be narrowed down to just that guest cast which is somehow determined to be truly "notable". (The other alternative is, indeed, to list everyone with "guest cast" crediting in the summary for each episode of a TV show, which is done at some TV series articles, but not most of them.) My point is, again – if 'Guest' cast is to be listed at all, then it has to be done in a verifiable manner (and that MOS:TV, or individual editor interpretations thereof, cannot "override" this requirement in any shape or form). If they're not, they can be removed, and such removals shouldn't be reverted, unless a new "source" (either a secondary source, or at least an episode title) is provided. And additions of episode titles to 'Guest' cast sections shouldn't be reverted either, for the same reason. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say you did, I was speaking of a universe "you"...as in the point of this section's discussion. The MOS doesn't fly in contradiction of WP:V. It merely says that we should not be just listing episode counts for guests (recurring or not). I think with regular guests, this isn't really an issue so much as recurring, where people like to put "10 episodes". My point about trying to lawyer the issue is that the MOS says "don't put episode count", so instead of saying "10 episodes", people try to find a loophole and list 10 episode titles. Regular guests don't typically have that issue, because they're there for 1 or 2 episodes, and most of the time we weren't seeing that pop up in their listings. I think where we appear to definitely agree with regard to the episode title comes down to sourcing. We shouldn't have a guest list that is "John Smith was a guest in episode 'Ridiculous'", because just the title alone isn't going to satisfy WP:V or WP:PRIMARY. You need date, possibly season number and episode, depending on whether we're talking about the Simpsons with 20+ seasons or not. What you really should have is a list that is "John Smith as Cobra Kai Idiot[ref23]", where the in-line citation is either going to be a secondary source or the episode citation template, which requires the episode title, air date, etc..  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think I have to disagree with the MOS on a point. If it says "no episode count", IMO that's a mistake. The importance of the recurring character is measured by the number of appearances, & you can only know that if it's listed. Otherwise, the guest cast list equates (frex) Teryl Rothery & Ronny Cox on "SG-1", & that's clearly wrong. I agree, episode titles for one-shots are pretty pointless, but I've already said IMO they are in any case (& especially so, if every title is to be used for recurring cast). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the importance of a recurring character is in no way shape or form based on how many episodes they appear in. For instance, if you think that the Sheriff Adams character in Smallville, who appeared in 20+ episodes is more important than Brainiac, who appeared in half that, then your logic is flawed. We also are not here to tell a reader that one character is more important than another. That's original research, even if you're trying to subtly do it through episode count listings. Write prose. Provide context. That's how readers determine if a character is important....they also watch the shows in question. The episode count is a trivial figure that plays no bearing into importance, which is why it isn't needed and what the MOS says not to do it. Trying to circumvent the MOS with episode titles doesn't change that and should be removed as if it's an episode count. Or should we just adjust the wording so people can't hide behind a technicality in the way the MOS is worded?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear – if we're talking recurring cast, then I agree with you as a list of episodes like this would basically qualify as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list (however, listing the episodes of appearance as hidden comment code would be allowed, and would actually be a good idea, IMO...); but if we're talking one- or two- episode guest cast, then I vehemently disagree, as per the discussion above – for guest cast, you often need the episode title on WP:V grounds, and doing that has nothing to do with the "no episode count" rule, which itself was added to MOS:TV on WP:V/WP:OR grounds in the first place. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Except the episode title itself doesn't meet WP:V. There's more information needed to be able to verify that, unless we're assuming that people can remember all 400 episodes of the Simpsons to recall where one name goes. That's why filling out the "citation episode" template is more important and appropriate. So. In the end, you still don't need to say "John Smith voiced Simpson character Y in the episode "To be Named Later". You just write "John Smith as Character Y[1]", with the reference template filled out with the episode title, season number, season episode number, airdate, etc. Like any proper reference should be. Doing otherwise would be like saying if I quote a film critic, then WP:V is satisfied if I just say, "According to The Hollywood Reported, 'this movie sucks'.".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree that the citation template has to be used (basically, as per WP:CITESTYLE) – the episode title is sufficient, as per WP:V (as the episode title refers to the cast listing in the episode, which meets WP:PRIMARY). But that is a minor point – certainly use of 'cite episode' is just an inline citation variation of the same requirement. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Except, CITESTYLE explicitly states that it should be consistent in the article. So, if the article used in-line citations, then you don't deviate for one thing. Also, the other various of citing information doesn't limit itself to just a title. Where does WP:V say that "the episode title is sufficient, as per WP:V (as the episode title refers to the cast listing in the episode." I cannot find that anywhere. It says, "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." - You also keep pointing to WP:PRIMARY as if it supports anything other than a definition of what a primary source is. It doesn't outline how that source needs to be identified in an article. Your options for verifying information is based on WP:CITATION. Just listing an episode title and calling it a day does not meet the criteria of being able to verify something. Again, that would be like citing something in an article and just saying "From People magazine". Ok, but there's not just one of those, so we need more information.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes it does – if I know an episode title for a particular episode of a TV series, I can look up that episode, check its credits for the cast that appeared/was credited, and verify that an actor appeared in the episode. That's a WP:Primary source, and is fully in line with verifiability requirements. Whether that's done as an "in-text" vs. an "inline" citation is a separate issue. Clearly, there is a preference on the project for inline citations, but there also is no "requirement" to use inline citations either. To be clear, if somebody adds episode info to guest cast as an inline citation, that fully meets the requirements, and I would never revert on the basis that it's an inline cite using {{cite episode}}. But neither would I revert anyone that simply adds the episode title, in-text, or insist that it be changed to an inline cite. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I'm not saying you have to 100% complete the information in the citation episode template, but you need more than just a title. Could you eventually find what you're looking for. Yes, I'm sure. But you shouldn't have to go sleuthing around just to verify some information. Again, that's not what PRIMARY SOURCE says. PRIMARY just describes what constitutes a primary source, so please stop pointing to that page like it defines how to cite a primary source. I would question the notion that simply putting an episode title next to the character would stand up to any review here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The title by itself is sufficient. It takes less than one minute to find it in order to verify credits or whatever it is you need it for it. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:CITEHOW: "Citations for films, TV episodes, or video recordings typically include: name of the director, name of the producer, if relevant names of major performers, the title of a TV episode, title of the film or TV series, name of the studio, year of release, medium (for example: film, videocassette, DVD), approximate time at which event or point of interest occurs, where appropriate." --- Notice, it doesn't say simply put a title. Is the title a start...yes. Is that sufficient to meet WP:V, not it isn't. You may want to be, but it goes against our guides on how to put proper citation in an article (whether in-line or not). Simple answer, just putting the episode title next to the actor/character is not an acceptable way to cite something. That's not a mountain, that's our guideline, and WP:V and WP:PRIMARY don't have anything that contradicts that, because they don't discuss how to actually cite something, only what requires it and how to define the type of citation.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:CITEHOW: This page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. In other words, guidelines aren't policies or top-down rules that are absolute and must be followed to the letter. Also, the specific section reads: Citations for films, TV episodes, or video recordings typically include. Keyword here being typically, meaning not required, but information you may see included. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Bignole, you've said it exceptionally well. An episode title as inline text cannot be a cite. As I said, I could put "The series has been renewed for a second season", and claim that this text is a cite, the very content of the renewal is, just as "Bob appears in ThisEpisode" was listed as supporting itself. It's not acceptable. This MOS is a guideline too, but we quote and implement it almost religiously. For exceptions to apply, exceptional circumstances must exist. They do not. There is clearly not a consensus to use inline text as a source. -- /Alex/21 23:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Sat.1

I was going to post this at WP:TVS, but that WikiProject is listed as semi-active; so, I figured I'd ask about it here. Sat.1#Programmes has a kind of WP:TVGUIDE feel to it, at least in my opinion. It seems to be trying to list every show the network ever ran. Most of the entries don't seem to have Wikipedia articles written about them (though perhaps they may have German Wikipedia articles written about them and could possiblly have English articles written about them as well) which might mean there's no real need to mention them. Moreover, the whole program section is bascically one big embedded list when it might be better to trim and rewrite as WP:PROSE instead. Just for rough comparison purposes, PBS#Programming and List of programs broadcast by PBS might be one possible way around something such as this. There's also the MOS:HEAD issue of a citation being used in the section heading, but this is relatively minor cleanup and can be taken care of once the other issues are resolved. Anyway, just wondering if a split might be justified for "Programmes" section. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures

Am I missing something or are these articles duplicates of one another? Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures (1990 TV series). Pinging @Sakura Cartelet: who reverted the redirect. --Gonnym (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures was created by User:MacCready. I have restored it to a disambiguation page. -- /Alex/21 08:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
He also seems to have added the 1992 article information to the 1990 article, should that also be removed? The 1992 currently is duplicated completely there. --Gonnym (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. I've restored all of their edits to a multitude of articles. -- /Alex/21 08:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gonnym: @Alex 21: From reading through the history of the series, it is clear that there is one series titled Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures, which switched from an animated to live-action format for its third season, retaining the voice cast from the second season to portray the characters in live-action. Each season had (for the most part a different crew), so there isn't really any reason to keep the articles separate. I do admit that it'll take a small amount of work to explain the transition, but that's what Wikipedia is for, after all. Would you be able to assist me in constructing this page? Hope to hear back from you shortly. MacCready (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't help you here, I haven't watched this series so don't know personally if this is a continuation, a reboot or a different series. My previous concern was that we had 2 articles with the same exact text. --Gonnym (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
They aren't very big article, maybe they could be combined into a TV series article? Also the 1990 page, that's a lot of categories, do we need all those categories? Govvy (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
No opinion on the cats – if anyone wants to trim them, feel free. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I would oppose a merge here, as there is nothing to indicate that the live-action version was "direct continuation" of the earlier animated series. In fact, I would be quite skeptical about such a claim. For example, there is no reason to believe that the animated series wouldn't have continued, if it had "caught on", with Fox running both the weekend animated series and the weekly live-action series simultaneously. (Similar situations have certainly happened before...) Also, the animated Fox series and the live-action Fox series do have different casts (e.g. the live-action version doesn't have the "Mary Jane" character, the animated version doesn't have "Missy Preston", etc.). I think it's best to leave them as separate articles. Certainly the CBS animated version has nothing to do with the two Fox versions... Ultimately, this is a discussion which should be held at the Talk page for one of these series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Game of Thrones episodes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Game of Thrones episodes#Unnecessary hiding of episodes. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Discovery Channel Mexico

Notice

The article Discovery Channel Mexico has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as being unreferenced since 2008 and for notability/context since 2017. Article is nothing more than a single sentence and a navigation box. No evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG; so, if deletion is not appropriate, then a redirect to another article may be.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on TRT World on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a request for comment on the reliability of TRT World on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: TRT World. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC on disambiguation of TV articles

An RfC has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RFC: What disambiguation should shows from the United States and United Kingdom use?. Additional participation is welcomed. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Episodic Drama winners

At Writers Guild of America Award for Television: Episodic Drama, the infobox says that the award is held by a writer for a series. However, I believe a writer wins for an episode. The confusion extends to the templates ({{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 1980s}}, {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 1990s}}, {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 2000s}}, and {{WritersGuildofAmericaEpisodicDramaScreenplay 2010s}}) that have been the subject of great warring. TVBuff90 does not think the templates should refer to a winning writer and there is an IP 98.234.123.100 that has been warring with him on this issue. Today, Rockstone35 removed writers from the templates in an attempt to stop disruptive behavior, which I don't think was really accurate. Do writers win for an episode and if so do winning writers belong on the templates?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Since you asked, yes they do. My apologies for my disruptive behavior. --TVBuff90 (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

common name vs formal name

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:HYPOCORISM regaring the applicability of MOS:HYPOCORISM as the rsult of this edit where "Jackie" (the character's on-screen name) was restored after it had been removed. Since this has the potential to affect many character articles it's a discussion in which this project should participate. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Turner Classic Movies (TCM) and the TCM Movie Database (TCMdb) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § How would guys consider TCM (Turner Classic Movies) especially their TCMDb section for sources and citations. — Newslinger talk 07:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

agenda pushing

There needs to be something done about this Gay agenda pushing regarding Talk:Lance (Voltron) and Talk:Keith (Voltron). There are no third person sources to support it something needs to be done.Dwanyewest (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Minus the fact that there's no 'gay agenda', you are free to change it yourself if you don't feel there's enough evidence to support it. I would edit Lance's but I simply don't know enough about the show to feel like I can (Keith's was a bit easier because it was pure speculation, but I don't know if Lance's description's happened or not, and don just want to make assumptions). QueerFilmNerdtalk 17:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Edits like these [1] without being sourced appear disruptive. "Fan shipping" has no place on any Wikipedia television page for character descriptions. I can actually see your point after reviewing a fair amount of the IP edits. The thing is though is that I don't watch the show, so if these edits are unsourced fan nonsense I would suggest you request that the page be protected. Esuka (talk)

Is there automatic article eligibility for regular cast members of primetime network shows?

The recent deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Numkena, who was the 2nd-billed cast regular of the 26-episode CBS series Brave Eagle may elicit comments as to the general nature of such deletions and a specific question regarding a possible recreation of his entry. If there are BLP concerns, the lead sentence may be reduced to, "XXXXXX was an American actor", with a list of credits and a couple of inline cites to general references such as Tim Brooks/Earle Marsh, Alex McNeil or Vincent Terrace, plus a couple of "External links" to IMDb, TVGuide, etc until someone expands it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Why? – If the subject was main cast of just a single (short-lived) TV series, then they don't meet WP:NACTOR and don't merit a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of The Vampire Diaries episode pages

It seems to be my belief that most of the pages for individual episodes of The Vampire Diaries do not meet notability or source guidelines. They are almost completely plot summaries with a song list and some reviews. Any opinions from someone who has dealt with this before? I would suggest redirecting them into the season pages. DLManiac (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of the articles for individual episodes of most TV series do not meet notability requirements!!... Unfortunately, though, they're still hard to delete because there will always be some editors that are basically "a single episode-review source = notable!" --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Aren't things like that handled on a case by case basis when the page BARELY meets the requirements to exist but could arguably be redirected if a strong enough case was presented?. Esuka (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You can always try to convert undersourced examples of these to redirects, and see if it "sticks". But if the conversion to a redirect is reverted, the only option then is WP:AfD... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studio

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Flag icons for studio. — YoungForever(talk) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Ian Alexander (actor) → Ian Alexander

There is an RM discussion on a page that may be of interest to this WikiProject:

Talk:Ian Alexander (actor)

Thanks for your input. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Various television portals up for deletion

In case anyone has missed it, various hand-curated television portals are currently listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. They include:

probably among others, it is getting hard to keep track. Most of these are in need of maintainers, if anyone is interested. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Battlestar Galactica for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Battlestar Galactica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Battlestar Galactica until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The X-Files for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The X-Files is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The X-Files until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

InterswitchSPAK

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at InterswitchSPAK and assessing it? It went through AfC so it probably meets WP:TVSHOW, but this edit here might indicate some COI or even undisclosed paid editing is taking place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 23#Template:Big Brother sidebar

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 23#Template:Big Brother sidebar . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 21:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Theatrical adaptation, TV adaptation

I feel sure that editors have used [[theatrical adaptation]] and [[TV adaptation]] in the parallel senses of literary adaptation for the stage and for the TV screen. In fact, however, TV/television adaptation are two redirects to adaptation of television material for the cinema, or TV-to-film.
Moments ago I posted a longer notice of the problem at Talk:Literary adaptation#Theatrical adaptation, TV adaptation.
(I post this short one also at WP:LIT, WP:CHILDLIT). --P64 (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of images in Template:Infobox Television episode

I have recently become concerned about the use of screenshots in {{Infobox Television episode}}, or similar templates such as {{Infobox Doctor Who episode}}. This is because nearly all of these screenshots used a non-free, and I believe that in most cases the images fail WP:NFCC, particularly WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.), a policy with legal considerations. Omitting many of these screenshots would not, I think, inhibit anyone's understanding of the infomation conveyed on the article. I understand there are series, such as The Simpsons, who have reduced the use of these images, while other series, such as Game of Thrones use screenshots on the vast majority of their episode articles. So I'm here to try to start a discussions about whether the use of these images is O.K. from a legal perspective and whether there is a good purpose to these images for them to stay. --TedEdwards 21:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Images for an episode infobox should only be used if 1) there is an official title card or similar promotional poster (as some of the previous Dr Who seasons had used) for the episode. Title card/poster takes any question of how the production or broadcaster wants the episode to be branded (per WP:NFCI#1), or 2) that the specific screencap used is the subject of discussion from secondary sources - such as a key moment in the episode, or where there's some production aspect that the image helps explain (eg one example I consider fair is the image on Worlds Apart (Fringe) which id'd as a key moment of the episode by critics and praised in the performance, despite the image just being talking heads). If no image cannot immediately either of those cases, the infobox should be left empty. --Masem (t) 23:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Looking at your reply, I'm wondering if you agree with me that there is a problem over non-free images. Your two criteria seem good, but do you think that too many images in episode infoboxes do not meet your two criteria (and therefore WP:NFCC)? --TedEdwards 00:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I absolutely agree. Too many editors pick a random interesting screenshot for the infobox. Many MANY shows are just talking heads 90% of the time, and such images aren't helpful. There has to be valid rhyme and reason under NFCC#8 to include a infobox image. --Masem (t) 15:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support general deprecation of the use of such images This seems like a no-brainer. Most of these episode articles (at least all of the GOT articles I’ve read) seem to be garbage OR magnets relying on (sometimes curious interpretations of) primary sources. Large-scale inclusion of "fair use" images of the scenes some random Wikipedia editors consider to be the most "iconic" does not ameliorate the issue. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of user-compiled data

Hello, I'm Horus from Thai Wikipedia. Recently there was a dispute in Thai Wikipedia whether inclusion of user-compiled data in television-related articles is allowed in Thai Wikipedia. The user involved claimed that English Wikipedia allowed such data, and therefore was confused whether the practice is not equally enforced in different Wikipedia. I, therefore, raised a question here: "Is inclusion of user-compiled data allowed in English Wikipedia (in television article context)?"

The pages in question are I Can See Your Voice Thailand, I Can See Your Voice Thailand (season 1), I Can See Your Voice Thailand (season 2), I Can See Your Voice Thailand (season 3) --Horus (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Horus I looked over the the English and Thai version of I Can See Your Voice Thailand and the talk pages over at Thai Wikipedia. I'm gonna try to answer your question however with the Thai articles I had to use Google Translate so forgive me if I misunderstood something.
From what I can tell the link that is at the root of the debate over at Thai Wikipedia (http://entertain.teenee.com/series/155726.html) is not acceptable in accordance with English Wikipedia guidelines since the article is citing Wikipedia as a source. English Wikipedia we have a policy against original research and all articles should have reliable sources to verify information. The inclusion of that link here at English Wikipedia should not be a reason used to override Thai Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and vice versa. I'll actually go through the articles above and review their sources and remove those that do not meet English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and tag the articles. The main thing is no article on English Wikipedia should use another website that cites any language of Wikipedia as a reliable source.
Since your from Thai Wikipedia if you don't mind me asking is this show actually called I Can See Your Voice Thailand? The logo in the main article leads me to think it is called I Can See Your Voice and if that is true the naming style for English Wikipedia should be I Can See Your Voice (Thai TV series). Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the show is called I Can See Your Voice Thailand นักร้องซ่อนแอบ. But what I need to be looked at is the Episodes section where users gather the data on their own, and definitely no reliable source can be found. --Horus (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Horus I'm in the process of reviewing the articles and removing links like this and tagging the articles with issues. I'll check the episode sections as well and report back. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Gonnym: we have an infobox issue can you review the season articles for these shows? They are using an infobox I've never seen before it looks like a custom infobox added to the page. They are not using {{Infobox television season}} or {{Infobox reality talent competition}} when they should be using the latter. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 05:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Horus: Upon review all four of the articles you asked about all of them have various issues when it comes to English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
  • Episode sections with tables and tables like "SING-vestigators" are allowed but need to have reliable sources. Right now both tables are out of compliance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines mainly because they do not follow the established manual of style for TV shows and they fail our verifiability policy.
  • All four articles are using the same sources from 2016 effectively leaving seasons 2 and 3 without any sources for any season specific content that is being added.
  • The season articles have accessibility issues (i.e. using only color to convey who is "Bad Voice" and "Good Voice") and red color used for the "SING-vestigators" tables with the bold red names are very hard for some readers to see.
So the short version yes the tables are allowed but they are out of compliance of our guidelines and policies because the information is currently not verifiable and they don't follow any established manual of style for tables. Please see The X Factor (UK series 7) as this is a good article that shows how tables should be used on English Wikipedia for a singing competition. All the information in the tables can be verified by the reliable sources in the article itself. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I suppose the "Weekly results per contestant" table, yes? And what are you planning to do with the tables: given some time to improve or just straight up delete it? --Horus (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I honestly don't have the time at the moment to fix them myself unfortunately. For now I'm gonna expand the discussion you started over at the talk page of I Can See Your Voice Thailand with the issues I've found and ping some editors to the discussion who regularly contribute to these articles to see if they can help resolve some of the issues. If you could help improve the articles by finding reliable sources that would be a big help as I don't speak Thai. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
As for NOTE and NOR tag, will it eventually lead to the deletion of said articles? --Horus (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
If the articles are not improved and brought up to compliance especially with the verifiability policy it can lead to their deletion if any editor would nominate them for deletion. If no improvement happens I would personally move the season articles to draftspace. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 06:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all assistance. --Horus (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Your welcome Horus and I got the discussion started over at Talk:I Can See Your Voice Thailand#Article layout and issues so if you have any other questions or see any other issues that need discussed we can keep it all in one place. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 07:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal : Merge Endemol into Endemol Shine

I would like to make a proposal in merging two pages together. This would mean merging the Endemol wiki page into the Endemol Shine Group wiki page. These are the pages I am referring to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemol_Shine_Group

The reason doing a merger proposal for these two pages makes logical sense because Endemol merged with Shine Group in 2015. You can already see on the description for Endemol Shine Group that it has incorporated this information, Endemol is incorporate in the History part of the Endemol Shine Group.

I think this is quite important because Endemol Shine make very popular shows globally such as Peaky Blinders and Black Mirror. However, if you were to type Endemol Shine into google, you see that Endemol comes up first. I think this is so confusing to people who are trying to understand the diference between endemol and endemol shine group. When I type it into google endemol is the first thing that seems to come up.

For this reason , I think we should merge the two so that it reflects the merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojmarson (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Music of Stranger Things

Hi... can I get some more eyes on Music of Stranger Things, specifically on the recent split of material from that page to Stranger Things (soundtrack) and Stranger Things 2 (soundtrack)? —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see the below:

Thanks. --woodensuperman 15:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Production logo, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Beyond the Wall (Game of Thrones) that may be helped by your participation. Thank you for reading! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  15:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Input request

A discussion related to this project has begun here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Creating a new genre. Please feel free to add your thoughts there. MarnetteD|Talk 14:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

After Dark (TV series)?

Hi, I posted this question on a Talk page over a month ago, without any reply, but perhaps I put it in the wrong place. Are you by any chance able to provide more information?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unreal7#After_Dark_(TV_series)?

Just trying to find out what the rules on this are. Many thanks for any help. AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "TV series". It looks like it's basically a "talk show" – under WP:NCTV, it could probably be disambiguated that way. But, failing that, "TV programme" is correct here – this is in no was a "TV series" with continuing story elements, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ok, thanks IJBall. So maybe what I suggested in my question - ie cultural differences - is a factor after all. As someone who has worked in (British) television for some years, I can assure you that our profession (in Britain) does not use the term "TV series" exclusively for shows with "story elements" (ie fiction series). I could go through the British trades and produce any number of examples but I hope you'll just take my word for it. But US norms tend to dominate on Wikipedia, so although this is a British show I'll leave the point now.
Incidentally I posted something a while ago on the language of "chat show" and then, a few years later, about "late-night" tv. In both cases some people in the US think there are terms which refer exclusively and only to a very specific kind of programming (or programing!) Sort of the same kind of issue:
(2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Talk_show&oldid=365600101#Talk_vs_chat_vs_discussion_-_again
(2010-2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Late-night_talk_show#Other_kinds
Hope this helps. If there is ever a group process for working out how to disentangle UK and US usages within TV articles I'd be happy to contribute from my experience of working in the industry on both sides of the Atlantic. AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Box Sets and Air Dates

For some series the BBC will release the whole series as a box set on iPlayer on the same day that the first episode is aired (the iPlayer views count towards TV ratings even when viewed weeks before the "Air Date"), it will then go on to show the other episodes on a weekly schedule. So what date should go in the "Air Date" field of the Episode List template? The date that the individual episode is actually broadcast or the date that the box set was released? I can see merits for both sides, perhaps we need a new field in the template to handle this situation (e.g. Available Date / First Broadcast Date). I think both dates are valid but I'm wondering what others think. Any opinions? - X201 (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Game of Thrones' episodic Infobox images

Hi all. There is a discussion taking place on the Game of Thrones talk page regarding the removal of the Infobox images on every episode's article. Some much needed consensus is needed on this change. Please join in! Thanks!--Templeowls17 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on adding IMDb to the RevertReferencesList

There is a request for comment regarding whether IMDb should be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which tells XLinkBot to automatically revert citations of IMDb by unregistered users and accounts under 7 days old, subject to additional limitations. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: IMDb. — Newslinger talk 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Hiding future episodes

This is just an interesting titbit for anyone that didn't know about it. If you're trying to hide a episode list template that already has a hidden comment, use the {{Void}} template like {{^|Episode list}}, instead of <!--Episode list-->. Using {{^|Episode list}} allows you to keep the hidden note without needing to do any weird things with the note like --><!--Note--><!--. I've added an example below (edit to see it).

Just thought it might be helpful. -- /Alex/21 11:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Be A Star (UK TV series) - fake?

Just stumbled upon Be A Star (UK TV series) on Wikidata, and to my surprise couldn't find it in any film/tv database (IMDb, thetvdb.com, TMDb, etc.). And when searching for a show with this title and these judges, Google and DuckDuckGo come up empty except Wikipedia mirrors/copies. You'd think that a recent show with such big names involved would have left some traces on the internet. I'm not very familiar with the English Wikipedia's procedures for cases like this, so maybe a regular could check it out. And if it's indeed a hoax, the other edits of the user who created it, Special:Contributions/ADunne05, probably should be checked, too. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk)

It certainly smells whiffy. It's a right little rabbit hole. Deserves archiving in the Fakes gallery. Will do a bit more digging to make sure its not something that was half produced and cancelled or something odd like that. Doubt it though. Good spot. - X201 (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, when I editing this one, I think I took a quick look around, and found nothing. If indeed nothing is found, it should be taken to WP:AfD. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll AFD it, will also ask admins to check the two accounts that have added the bulk of the content (Suspiciously similar names). It lasted two years. - X201 (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be A Star (UK TV series) - X201 (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And it's gone. Thanks for the help guys! I also nominated the Wikidata item for deletion, should be gone soon. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Now added to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia in the 1-3 years section. - X201 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Screen Rant on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Screen Rant. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Plot summaries on the date of premiere

I've recently reverted the addition of the Game of Thrones season (and series) finale. THe episode premiered tonight to (presumably) millions of watchers. That said, I think its reasonable to assume that millions and millions more have not seen the episode as of yet.

I've been inactive on WikiEn for almost a year, and am unsure of my procedural footing regarding this revert. Doesn't it infringe on the studio/station's ability to make money if we don't wait a reasonable amount of time before posting the plot of the episode? I remember us doing precisely this with other media, both tv and film.

Some guidance, please. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to write an episode summary after a new episode of a series airs. Add: You may also wish to actually read WP:COPYVIO, as what you removed does not violate that policy. A copyright violation would be copying everything written here and then trying to pass it off as your own article. QueerFilmNerd's edit was perfectly fine, and you removing it seems to be purely on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. The summary violates nothing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey, a little good faith wouldn't be too much to ask, now would it? This isn't about whether I like it or not, this is about the infringement of the makers' ability to make money from their work. A copy violation isn't just about plagiarism (as someone who has read WP:COPYVIO could tell you). It's about protecting their rights as well - unless Wikipedia has changed substantially in the year I've been away.
As the episode hasn't aired worldwide as of yet (but should in about a day), I am suggesting we wait the 24 hours, to give broadcasters the chance to enjoy the fruits of their efforts. We have dont this before in lots of articles. Why the rush? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please point to where WP:COPYVIO says this is about the infringement of the makers' ability to make money from their work. Otherwise, it's nothing but a made up statement. There is nothing preventing us from writing an episode summary after an episode airs for any series. It could be Game of Thrones or PAW Patrol. Also, sites like Amazon and iTunes have new episodes available the day after they air at 12:00 AM. So if a new episode airs at 9:00 PM, and that new episode is released at 12:00 AM the next day, that's only a wait of three hours. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Are you arguing that it isn't a copyright infringement akin to video piracy to reveal a plot before its made available to the general public? Even you pointed out that Amazon and others wait a period of time before offering the program on their service. Typically, we also wait a period of time. I know for a fact that Indonesia won't get the finale until tomorrow noon. As there is no deadline for this material - ie., it will still be notable in 3, 12, oe 24 hours, I'm not sure why you you are rudely insisting that this is a case of me simply trying to gum up the works. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Once an episode airs, that is no longer case as the episode itself is a perfectly reliable WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. In other words, once an episode airs, it is already validly released to the public via the airing network. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That would be true, if it had been released to the public everywhere. I've pointed out at least one place that won't get it until tomorrow (unless they pirate it), so you are kinda screwed by your own argument, Amaury. You yourself admitted that Amazon and iTunes wait a period of time before releasing the content. Do you think they are doing it for fun? They wait because doing otherwise would interfere with the right of the makers to benefit from their creation, and open them up to fines/lawsuits/etc.
We are interfering with that same right. Right now. I might in fact be misremembering COPYVIO (which is why I came here to clarify the matter with veteran WPT contributors), but we are in fact interfering with that right. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The episode has already aired on the East Coast and is currently airing on the West Coast. The fact that it's already aired on the East Coast means it is perfectly fine to add credit info as well as write episode summaries. You seem to be the only one who's misinterpreted WP:COPYVIO as literally no one else has agreed with you. This is where WP:DROPTHESTICK comes into play. Yes, Amazon and iTunes don't release the episodes until the next day, but that is for contractual reasons between them and networks. See again WP:SPOILER. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wait. Do...do you - hey, tell me you understand that the Wiki-En isn't North America specific, right? That means this wiki is read well beyond our borders, from Seattle to Surabaya (where, as I've pointed out, the ep has not aired). We don't publish just for the North American readers. I'm getting the vibe that you don't think that, and its pretty effing important that you get on board with that, pronto.

This isn't about spoilers, Amaury; in 24 hours, my concerns evaporate. That will be the time when it can be reasonably expected that the general public (read: the world) has access to the content being offered on pay services. What we are doing is akin to video piracy. And those "contractual reasons" you noted? They keep folk from getting sued by the copyright holders. It allows the networks to enjoy the fruit of their labors.
Why are you in such a hurry? This isn't a race. We aren't in a hurry. We aren't a newspaper of a social media site. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that sites like Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, USA Today, and several other RSes have posted recaps, our recap is not at all close to a problem in terms of denying the copyright owners money. It would be far different if someone posted the recap based on a leaked script. Once the show is public, cat's out of the bag and we should not be worried about an appropriate summary recap. --Masem (t) 05:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. This is really no different. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it is. As the episode has not aired worldwide - and therefore not available to the general public as of yet, 'denying the copyright owners money' is precisely what we are doing. This has been an issue with episodic content and film articles in the past, but usually, folk heald off for a day or two to let the episode get seen. We aren't doing that here, and it seems like a pretty bad precedent to create. We should wait until its available to the public. I love you, Masem, but I think you are wrong here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that it hasn't aired worldwide, what matters is that it's legitimately aired in one place first—in this case, the East Coast. That is sufficient, regardless of your incorrect understanding of WP:COPYVIO. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"It doesn't matter that it hasn't aired worldwide" - um, the general public extends beyond our borders, buddy. It extends to anywhere the wiki-en can be read. In many of those places, the ep has aired. In many others, it has not aired yet. You should feel absolutely free, however, to point out where in Wikipedia that the airing of a show in America - and not worldwide, as you conveniently keep ignoring - means copyright infringement is abated. Go ahead - I'll wait. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Nice try, but no. It only concerns those in the country of origin. Game of Thrones is an American series, so once it airs in the US, that's all that matters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOT#PLOT and the aim to keep plot summaries concise through MOS:TV help us compared to how wordy recaps from EW and other sources cover. We're fine from a copyvio standpoint. --Masem (t) 05:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)0
I've never argued that the plot summary was overlong, or crap writing. I'm arguing as to its inclusion before its available to the general public. Amaury keeps thinking that 'hey, its premiered in America, so screw everyone else who hasn't seen it (I'm paraphrasing). The wiki-EN is read by people worldwide. The term 'general public' refers to anyone with access to the Wiki-EN; in many of those places, the episode has not premiered. Therefore, it is a copyright infringement to pirate the plot of the episode before the makers have had the opportunity to make their money in a timely manner. Amaury admitted that Amazon, etc. holds off on making the show available for download hours after the show. He focuses on the contractual obligations of the situation, and completely misses why those delays are built into the broadcast/streaming/download agreements. It is to allow the maker to profit from their endeavor - a universally recognized legal principle.
By publishing a plot summary before it is available to the viewing general public, we are no more than a torrent site. We are stealing revenue from the makers. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Where does it say that independently written, brief plot summaries that don't replicate anyone else's words violate WP:COPYVIO (even if they were published before the release of a work, which isn't the case here)? --bonadea contributions talk 05:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm contending that it is a copyright infringement, not a copyright violation. By publishing a plot summary before the episode is available to the general public, we are depriving the maker of their right to profit from their work. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Very vell - you have been referring to WP:COPYVIO which discusses violations, hence my misunderstanding. Let me rephrase: which Wikipedia policy is violated here, and where exactly is this laid out? (I understand what your argument is and what your concerns are. I do not see where the non-copied plot summary violates actual policy.) --bonadea contributions talk 06:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That's just it; I know we have dealt with this before, a few years ago, but I cannot recall the article or the consensus of those discussions where copyright infringement was at issue. I came here to get feedback from regular Project Television contributors. I'm considering widening the circle on my inquiries; this seems like part of that slippery slope. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Jack Sebastian on this. Except IMO it's not an infringement, since we're not actually profiting, not (as I see it) actually preventing a profit; we would be if we aired the episode. That said, however, this comes in conflict with WP:Spoiler: WP doesn't withhold information to prevent them. And that may be the operative factor, here, not copyvio (or infringement). IMO, adding spoilers to movie or TV reviews is perverse; I see not need for them except in extraordinary cases ("Memento", frex--& that doesn't demand blowing the ending). So what's the hurry to spoil the ending, here? Prof Chas Xavier I know what you're thinking 10:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
This whole discussion feels like Jack is just making up a Rule to get around WP:SPOILERS. In short, it is always okay to add plot after release of any work, as we have a legitimate source at that point. It's not our job to care or even know about when, after initial release, other releases are occurring. We are not any sort of copyright-violating site as the material we include as summary cannot be used to reproduce the work, in any way, shape, or form, for any of a multitude of reasons, largest being that you cannot take a 300-700 word summary and turn it into a video work of 60 minutes at 24-60 frames/second. It's just not physically possible. --Izno (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
+1, except the first sentence, I have no view on motives. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
To add a larger argument, the idea that we should not discuss the plot of an episode until there is no more commercial value due to our plot denying the sale to the copyright holder in that episode means, in today's age of home media and streaming, that there would never be a time to include the plot. That's a completely impossible position to take. Basically, it comes down to knowing that a 700 word plot summary is in no way equivalent to 45-60 minutes of acting, filming, special effects, music, and other production values that contribute to the whole experience of actually "watching" the episode. As long as the broadcast was public (pay cable falling under PAYWALL public) then we're fine to discuss it. --Masem (t) 14:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I can assure you that in the course of my entire editing history, I have never defended spoiler use. I agree with Prof CHas Xavier in that purposely putting them into an article is indeed perverse (and a bit arrogant), but spoiler alerts, or keeping content out because of spoilers is a social media thing. We aren't social media. We're an encyclopedia; it's not like anyone is saying 'spoiler alert: the dinosaurs didn't make it.'
Tl;dr: I have never been in favor of removing content due to spoilers. My edit history proves that, time and again.
Perhaps I am too widely interpreting our responsibilities with regard to copyright infringement. My stance was that, since it wasn't yet available to the general public around the world (or at least that part that had access to the Wiki-EN), revealing the plot would interfere with the copyright holder's right to make money off their creation. I felt that a grace period after broadcast was called for, to allow the creator to profit from their creation. Revealing the content of that creation may not have prevented all from continuing to (as in the bakery/apple pie scenario described above) to stand in line, but if even one person steps out of line and decides not to purchase 'a pie' because of our interpretation of that pie, we have deprived the creator of their financial due. That's what I sought to address.
I was not arguing that we wait until every last penny was squeezed from the creation; a simple grace period of a day seemed reasonable. I didn't get what all the hurry was. As an encyclopedia, we actually have a responsibility to not rush. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
We're talking about a TV show so any commercial opportunity immediate is from cable sub fees for HBO in this case. Logicistically, how much do you think HBO lost in the 2hrs from when the eastern airing was over to when the western airing started from people calling up their cable companies, requesting them to terminate their HBO subscription to immediately take effect so that HBO is denied the extra hour or so of their subscription fees? Pretty much zero. It would be different if we were talking a PPV event that for some reason broadcasted 3 hrs behind on the west coast, where people could back out from paying that once they heard the results of the events. (This is why PPV events are simultcast without concern of time zones). It's effectively a nonconcern. (Another way to look at this: when the Olympics are held in basically the Eastern Hemisphere, American broadcasters will broadcast events delayed. This doesn't stop WP from updating the event winners, and from a broadcasting standpoint, people still watch the Olympics in mass droves to make (in this case) NBC lots of money.)
The key word is "public broadcast". The infamous leak of the "Rose" episode of Doctor Who, while generally available all around, was not public (it was illegal copyright taking) and thus we didn't update the plot from that episode. If a show panel at a closed event (not public or required special VIP access) at some comic con showed an episode, that would not be considered public, but if it was shown to an open panel (anyone that paid general admission to get in), then that would be public. --Masem (t) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
All good points, Masem. I would point out that Amazon and iTunes reportedly don't share content until the ep airs. If I decide not to purchase the stream or dl of the ep because I already know the content, the creator has been deprived of potential income.
I was sure that this topic had come up before (and I am pretty sure that it wasn't "Rose"; that right path was very clear). If this hasn't really been sorted out before, I think we (as a wiki) should probably set something up to guide folk on. I still think it is often better to be safe than sorry, and I think the WP:NOHURRY essay conforms to that idea. I applaud exuberance in the encyclopedia, so long as it doesn't deprive someone else of their bank. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOHURRY has nothing to do with episode summaries. It has to do with things like adding an end date for a series before the series finale has even finished airing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeahhhh, you're probably going to want to re-read that again, Amaury. Go ahead: we'll wait for you. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That's still dealing the content difference of a 700 word plot summary and 45-60 minutes of well produced AV content. Here's a personal take: I hate going to movie theaters but have no problem renting movies or using the streaming services when the movie is out. I will read the spoiler-filled summary (eg like with Avengers Endgame) so I know what the talk of the Internet is about, but I have no idea of any of the scenes: I will still be renting to see the video and audio that a 700 word summary in no way can convey. I can pretty much tell you that those that only follow recaps and need nothing else are buying episodes off iTunes or Amazon. --Masem (t) 18:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I get that its how you do it, Masem, but I think you know that you are probably more of an outlier in your approach. Common sense and marketing wisdom indicate that someone will not spend money on something that someone else has ruined for them. It bears pointing out that this wasn't an article for the episode; if it had been, anyone venturing to that page is volunteering to see information about the ep. This was an article about season 8; the episode summary was in there, alongside other summaries from before. People weren't checking the article to necessarily see the ep summary for the finale. Conclusion: people can unintentionally see a plot summary for an ep they haven't seen yet.
Let me put this in the clearest possible terms. For several reasons, we should wait before posting plot summaries. Many outlets (where the Wiki-EN is accessible) broadcast later than the US. Publishing the plot summary makes it less likely that people will download or stream the episode, as it has been ruined for them. Broadcasters lose revenue. We have infringed on their copyright by unnecessarily rushing to post deets about the episode. Therefore, we shouldn't do it. We should have a grace period before posting. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Still a inane argument give that several commercial entertainment websites have recaps ready to go once the last credit rolls off. If anything, they're deriving commercial value in lieu of the copyrighter in your framing of this; WP doing the same could actually play as a plus in a fair use defense if it came to that. Your argument would have weight if only WP were providing these recaps, which is absolutely not true. But no, even if WP stopped the practice, the issue would still be propagated by professional sites and fan sites. So no, this is not a logical thread we can act on to delay posting recaps once the episode airs publicly for the first time.
And arguing that people will not download or stream "as it has been ruined for them" doesn't fly either. Our content disclaims effectively incorporate WP:SPOILER. Seriously, if people haven't had the opportunity to see the latest GoT episodes, and are serious about saying "pure", they should know better to stay off certain websites or avoid pages that will spoil them. WP is not broadcasting what happened in the finale to all readers, only those that visit the GoT and related pages. And at that point, this becomes a repetition of all past arguments related to WP:SPOILER. So again, not a starting point.
There is seriously no harm that is going to come to WP as long as we are restricting ourselves to short summaries and only after the first reasonable public broadcast of the episode. --Masem (t) 00:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
♠I'm going to agree with Jack again, here. What's the rush?
♠And there's a bigger issue at play, beyond WP:TV. I've seen film "plot summaries" that describe every single event in a film. After that, what is the point of going to see it? Or rent or dl or buy it? How is that "summary"?
♠Yes, I'm getting a bit far afield, now, but it's not unconnected. There seems to be a WP mania (in some editors, anyhow; AFAIK, nobody involved here) to put in every single thing, & do it this very instant. Comprehensive is good. Soon is good (especially in cases of celebrity deaths). It's not always the right call. In cases of TV show summaries, IMO, it's a mistake. Honestly, do you want to be told how "Breaking Bad" or "GoT" ends, or see for yourself?
♠I agree with Masem, there is, must be, a time a summary will be added. I just don't think there's any urgency. Johnny Gage KMG 365 00:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The question of should we wait a bit to post a plot summary is different. One can fairly argue that we should see what the general take on the episode is in RS and then write the plot summary to follow those (eg if there's an A/B plot and the B plot is covered in more detail than the A plot, then maybe our summary should too). This can also play a bit into SPOILER if consensus on the page agree "Hey, we should wait". But to the point being raised, as soon as that episode starts airing in a public medium, there are no legal or WP-policy-based factors that says it cannot be added. (The can vs should question). --Masem (t) 02:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I think the disconnect here is that at least a few of your are not drilling down on the fact that a lot of places where the Wiki-EN is accessible did not have access to the episode for a period of 3-12 hours. Arguing that it's airing in one place means its fair game seems a bit disingenuous, esp. when the editors adding the information are from the country of broadcast origin.
That bears repeating: it had not publicly aired in many places where the Wiki-EN can be accessed, and where the plot summary was offered. For the same reasons that we remove plot summaries of tv episodes that haven't aired yet, we should wait until they air in the various markets. Its never more than 24 hours. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
If it hasn't aired in places where the Wiki-EN can be accessed then there should be no episode summary?!. You do realise that even today there are broadcast delays specifically written into contracts meaning that places like the UK, Australia etc are not allowed to air a show until it has finished its whole season in the US. Mad Men in the UK was five months behind the US broadcast. Even this very week, Gentleman Jack has started broadcasting in the UK a month behind the US. No plot summaries in that article for a month? Really?! I fully agree with Masem et al. This is Wikipedia, if it has been broadcast, then we cover it. - X201 (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Come on, X201, that isn't what I was suggesting, and I suspect you know that. It's called a grace period for a reason. Something is contractually withheld from broadcast in a specific region, or withheld due to censorship/dickishness/whatever is not losing anticipated revenue, as the broadcaster is aware that the episode isn't going to show there. Beyond that, the suggestion (from the start of this), was that we should wait a bit of time for the general viewing public (caveat: those with legitimate access to the Wiki-EN) before airing plot details of the episode. Like, 3-12 hours. Not months. No one ever said that we shouldn't cover it.
Now, let's turn this around a bit, X201: what's your hurry? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
As long as major media sites do not "respect" that time difference with recaps appearing in the hours after airing in first country of broadcastt,neither should we. There is no commercial harm reason otherwise, and spoiler policy is set as is. --Masem (t) 10:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That's a good argument. Flip-side of that argument: since many news outlets solicit opinions and skew news stories to fit a specific editorial bent, we should, too.
And (again, ugh) this is not - and never has been - about spoilers. Please stop trying to pigeonhole the issue as such. A spoiler argument suggests leaving out details well beyond a date of reasonable viewing and broadcast. The argument has always been that we should wait a bit so the readership gets a crack at seeing the episode. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Reception section at The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones) article

We need opinions on the following matters: Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)#Let's try to keep this article balanced and Talk:The Iron Throne (Game of Thrones)#False balance. A permalink for it is here. In other words, we need opinions on assessing and presenting the critical consensus and/or appropriate weight per WP:Due. Rotten Tomatoes is part of the discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Futurama for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Futurama is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Futurama (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Issue with onlyinclude tags and episode lists

I just encountered an issue that prevented me from transcluding data from a season article to another page. After posting on WP:VPT, the issue was found that using the <onlyinclude> tags around the episode list prevent any other possible transclusions. Instead of those tags, an option that works and does not prevent other transclusions is to use <section begin=Episodes /> and <section end=Episodes /> (the "Episodes" text can be anything) instead of the onlyinclude tags, and {{#section:page name|Episodes}} on the list of episodes page. --Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

RT (formerly Russia Today)

Hello. You are invited to participate in two related RfCs: Talk:5G#RfC:Russian disinformation and Talk:RT (TV network)#RfC:Propaganda. R2 (bleep) 18:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Crew years in the infobox

During a dispute over my removal of cast years in the infobox, per infobox instructions, and editor made the following statement: it makes ZERO SENSE to ban years ONLY on the hosts entry I edited when several other entries in the SAME infobox (directors, producers, production companies, networks, video format) have them.[2] This does seem a valid question. Should we be excluding years for all cast and crew listed in the infobox and not just the cast that we see and/or hear? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Your edit was correct. I've even cleaned it up more. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
They should be gone to. The only "years" should be for when the show was airing. The crew and everyone else shouldn't have years in the infobox. That's best left for prose sections to outline when and how someone left.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Boldfaced season number in the lead sentence of season articles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Boldfaced season number in the lead sentence of season articles. Radiphus (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of the horizontal rule

The horizontal rule has been used for sometime now to combine episodes, for example episode 11/2 of Terra Nova (TV series). Last night an IP changed the code to combine the episodes,[3] which is an issue that even went to RfC so I reverted. This resulted in the IP making this edit stating "In that case, fix massive accessibility issue and tag unruly summary" in his edit summary. He hasn't made clear what the issue is but it seems to be use of the horizontal rule. However, I can find nothing in MOS:ACCESS about horizontal rules so my question is, should we be using horizontal rules or not? If so, then this affects many more than this article and needs to be addressed. I have opened a related discussion at WT:ACCESS#Use of the horizontal rule. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Similar issues have been brought up again and again regarding this. While this does not use rowspan="2" to produce the 2 lines but just a visual separator, it is still places readers using screen readers at a disadvantage as it reads for them unwanted information - if a reader wanted to know who wrote the 2nd episode, it readers "Story by : Kelly Marcel & Craig Silverstein Teleplay by : Craig Silverstein & Kelly Marcel and Brannon Braga & David Fury", before finally reaching the actual information. There just is no reason for this. --Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Aside from accessibility issues, I don't care for the use of the horizontal rule in a lot of cases. For example, I can't figure out why something like 1<hr>2 is somehow "better" than 1–2 for the episode numbering... I guess what I'm saying is that I see use of the horizontal rule even in a number of cases where it doesn't really "need" to be used, or where "splitting" episodes #1 and #2 into separate rows would be the better solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the use of the horizontal rule was a progression from using "1<br />2" and "1<br />2<br />3" type numbering which created problems when linking to some episodes. I do tend to agree with you regarding numbering. The episode that I used as an example was particularly problematic in that it aired as a single episode on one night with the same ratings and a single set of credits with no gap between the episodes while having different production codes. In such cases we can list the parts separately using "1a" and "1b" for the episode number with no need to use the horizontal rule, although that can present issues with the plot summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Splitting rows is not accessible to screenreaders when done visually using the <hr /> tag, and can now be done through the numbered parameters, such as |DirectedBy_1=, |DirectedBy_2=, etc. -- /Alex/21 01:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
What about episode numbers? There are plenty of examples where episode numbers are combined. The Terra Nova episode(s) is/are an example. Rugrats aired almost all of its episodes as pairs, and in one season episodes were aired in groups of 3. This is where the big problem lies, which is why use of the horizontal rule persisted. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
What has always been done is not always the same as what is right. The examples of how the classic-era Doctor Who season articles used to look like were the used example in the above discussions on how the horizontal rule is not screen-reader friendly. The examples at List of Rugrats episodes are clearly an issue as well. I've seen many an example such as that be split into 1a and 1b episodes, these articles should follow those examples; for example, List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes. -- /Alex/21 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I obviously don't disagree with the use of "1a", "1b" type numbering but it's not needed in all cases. Previous versions of List of Rugrats episodes didn't suffer the horizontal rule problem, that was introduced in 2017,[4] and it's been creeping into other articles for the past 2 years at least. We can discuss various programs but I think the common thread is that we shouldn't be using the horizontal rule and that needs to be something mentioned in the template instructions at least, so we can direct editors appropriately. Many won't believe anything you say unless it's written down. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't believe it first as well given that it wasn't written down. MOS:DTAB already states Avoid using <br> tags in adjacent cells to emulate a visual row that isn't reflected in the HTML table structure. This is a problem for users of screen readers which read tables cell by cell, HTML row by HTML row, not visual row by visual row. This applies to <hr> as well, given the identical nature as a block element. That's why the numbered parameters were implemented, and are already documented at Template:Episode list."1a", "1b" numbering is needed in cases where the writers and/or directors are different between the two episodes/segments, so that the credits are listed with their correct episode. -- /Alex/21 11:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I sense a "How many of our 14,000 transclusions of {{Episode list}} use <hr>?" question coming over the horizon. - X201 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
X201, Did a quick checking run on AWB overnight. 366 out of 12,778. -- /Alex/21 00:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like that is a small enough number to fix. Just needs agreement and then it can be fixed. - X201 (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hi all, I'm proposing a merge: List of Tamil soap operas currently airing → List of Tamil soap operas. Discussion can be found Talk:List of Tamil soap operas#Proposed merge with List of Tamil soap operas currently airing. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk show yearly episode list articles

I've taken a look at some talk show "season" articles, and there seems to be a systmatic issue with all of them. Here are the 2018 articles (used these since 2019 is only half-way done and these should be in better condition): Conan, James Corden, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Meyers and Stephen Colbert. As you can see, all these articles are just the episode tables, without any other information, with one not even having one source add to it (and most older talk show lists are similar with no sources). I'm sure a year ("season") of production can be notable, with special events and guests, controversies and other stuff to add to the production and of course critical reception, ratings, awards, etc. However, these articles don't have these. In their current form these should be merged into the main List of series episodes article. I'd appreciate other input on this. --Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said at my Talk page, I'm against doing episode lists for TV talk shows at all (basically, as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and also WP:V), and I'd be fully in favor of mass-deleting/deprecating all of these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother Canada#Requested move 7 June 2019

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother Canada#Requested move 7 June 2019 . Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 02:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Luke Bickerton

Just an FYI, I've noticed "Luke Bickerton" being added to TV articles lately. e.g. 12 It's not always the same editor and others have been fixed by other editors. It's not always obvious that it's vandalism. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Your two examples are from the same IP – any chance you can find another example of these where it's from "another editor"? I'm interested to see if it at least is the same IP range, or the same geolocation... In any case, this seems like a less insidious (i.e. more obvious) version of the User:Trey Sartorius-type of vandalism... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Silly me didn't take much notice until the second time that IP edited. I thought Luke Bickerton might actually be someone. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Review request for Soultaker (film) FAC

The FAC for Soultaker has been going on for over a month and I'm hoping that it can get some more eyes on it before it closes. GamerPro64 22:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Television article splitting

Recently, I came across that Charmed (2018 TV series) have been split into a season page and an individual episode pages for all 22 episodes. Per Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), it seems to be WP:TOOSOON, as WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH apply to the season page and individual episode pages. Can editors who are familiar with television article splitting give an input on this? — YoungForever(talk) 22:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@YoungForever: In my personal opinion everything should be merged back to the parent article except POSSIBLY the pilot episode which would be the ONLY exception. The season page contains no season-specific production information which is needed for season articles. I also personally checked every episode article and they pretty much only consist of plot and viewing figure sections which can exist in the episode and rating sections on the main page. None of them consist of enough information to warrant their own articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, especially since there's really absolutely nothing in the season article. Also, all those individual episode articles (except maybe the pilot but even that is very borderline) should be merged back to the main article. - Brojam (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho: & @Brojam: That's what I thought based on Wikipedia:Article splitting (television). — YoungForever(talk) 22:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, merge that sucker/move it back to Draft with prejudice – there's absolutely no reason for a separate season article here. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
I've gone ahead and merged everything back to the main article. Thanks for pointing this out YoungForever; these often go unnoticed and then become a pain to correct. - Brojam (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for merging them back to the main article, Brojam. I am not a page mover which may cause some unnecessary issues. — YoungForever(talk) 23:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for dispute resolution re: use of ratings graphs

Experienced TV editors: please weigh in on a discussion here about List of Twin Peaks episodes. Specifically, the discussion is about whether to remove ratings graphs added using the template Template:Television ratings graph, which has been designed for this purpose. I tried to open the discussion and ping interested users to no avail. One user, who refused to respond or meaningfully participate in the discussion, has continued reverting my edits to reinstate the graphs. All viewpoints welcome. Thank you —BLZ · talk 21:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@BLZ: There was several previous discussions on use of ratings graphs before. They are on the archives: [5], [6], [7]
I find them to be unnecessary as they are redundant to the ratings table(s). However, I personally would not add or remove them myself. — YoungForever(talk) 22:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
My view is that there shouldn't be a ratings graph unless a show has run 3 or more seasons – a graph is not meaningful otherwise. In the specific case of Twin Peaks, I really would question the point of a ratings graph at all, as two of the seasons ran on a U.S. broadcast net in the early 1990s, and the third season aired on a U.S. premium cable channel in the mid-2010's – that is seriously a case of "comparing apples and oranges"!! To me, having a ratings graph in this particular case it basically pointless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't just one graph though, it was two. I've never seen that before on any television page and it looked really bad. Perhaps if Showtime decide to continue Twin Peaks in the future(Never officially canceled) something can be worked out for the revival series. But for now, they shouldn't be there. Esuka (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I personally don't like the graphs, but having two was completely pointless and seems to be trying "game" something, as it compared millions and thousands. In this specific case, none of the graphs are actually adding any value to the article. --Gonnym (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

How to add viewing figures?

Where are this projects' instructions on how to add ratings to an article? There's a brief mention of ratings in MOS:TVRECEPTION, but no actual guidelines on how it should be done. I ask because it appears that every editor is free to think that their way is the only right way to do it and it's starting to feel like I'm wasting my time contributing. I've been reverted for adding 7 day figures, and for adding 28 day figures, questioned for not adding 7 day figures, for combining references that point to the same page, for putting a reference in a column header (where the template documentation tells you to put it), I've been reverted, accused of disruptive editing and told to "stop dicking around with the ratings". Where in this project's MoS are the instructions on the accepted way to add ratings? - X201 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible MoS proposal on fictional characters

There's a discussion regarding a potential WP:MOS on all fictional characters. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Manual of Style for fictional characters?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

GoT season 8 critical reception summarization

Hi. Can you join to the discussion about Game of Thrones' season 8 critical reception summary so that it can reach a consensus? Sebastian James what's the T? 19:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Typically, its good form to let people back at the article discussion page know when you are seeking outside opinions, Seb. It avoids any accusations of attempted forum-shopping, which of course I am sure you wouldn't try to do. That would be editorial suicide. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sandra_Oh#Canadian-American?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sandra_Oh#Canadian-American?. Joeyconnick (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Family Matters Season 4 Episodes Listed Incorrectly

I once again brought up the listings for season four of Family Matters not being correct on the episode list talk page. Some input is needed before I make such a correction. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 03:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Day 1 Eviction

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Day 1 Eviction. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"If You Read Wikipedia Summaries Instead of Watching Movies or TV Shows, You're Not Alone"

I thought this BuzzFeedarticle from today might make some of you feel better about spoilers, LOL: Davis, Adam (June 27, 2019). "If You Read Wikipedia Summaries Instead of Watching Movies or TV Shows, You're Not Alone". BuzzFeed. — TAnthonyTalk 01:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sure! – Why watch Game of Thrones, etc. when you can just read the episode articles?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Years or seasons should not be included"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can someone explain the rationale behind this directive, noted in some but not all the relevant fields, in Template:Infobox television? Particularly in the case of Jeopardy!, removing the year/season information greatly reduces the meaningfulness of the information presented without substantially improving the aesthetic of the presentation. It just makes it seem like the show had multiple hosts/producers/directors/announces etc. simultaneously, when a simple inclusion of year/season eliminates any such confusion and keeps things clean. Is not this rule more of a "foolish consistency" hobgoblin? (For reference, here is the first diff that introduced this language, although initially it was only for "starring".) Robert K S (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm going to get in trouble for answering this, but I actually agree with you that are instances where it is actually very sensible to list date ranges for certain people in TV infoboxes – certainly game show hosts and (late night) talk show host are examples of this... It's worth remembering that template documentation is also effectively a Guideline (i.e. not a "rule" or a "law"), and there are certainly occasions where it's perfectly sensible to ignore what the template documentation says and do the opposite.
What I would say is this – If this is a situation where you believe the template docs should be ignored on something, start a Talk page discussion on the issue, and gauge support to see if there consensus for your position. I know that I would be likely to support your position in this case, if it was an article I was watching... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The issue of years in the infobox was raised in this discussion. As a result of that an editor opened this RfC. More recently I raised the matter above. The clear consensus at all three discussions was that we shouldn't include the information. Infoboxes serve a similar purpose to the lede in summarising important information in the article, the lede in prose format, the infobox in bullet point format. Neither the lede nor the infobox should go into minute detail and that what years are. If there is a need to discuss the tenure of cast and crew the place to do that is in the body of the article. This version of Jeopardy is exactly what we should NOT do. It uses small text to fit in information that would otherwise make the infobox too cumbersome. Use of small text is warned against in MOS:SMALLTEXT; it's an accessibility issue because it makes the text too small for people with impaired vision. In addition to this, |first_aired= is being used improperly. We should only be listing one first_aired date, not every date as Jeopardy does. It includes the original run, weekly syndication that overlaps the original run, another run on the same channel (that appears to be a continuation of the first run) and a "daily syndication" date range. If additional dates need to be discussed they should be discussed in the prose. I note that Robert K S has been edit-warring with other editors about this, rather than engaging on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I should probably ping TenPoundHammer and AldezD as the other editors involved in the dispute. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree that presenting year spans for each entry in the infobox clutters it. Function is to be concise and informative, not an exhaustive list of years for each personnel listed. This can be covered in prose within the article. AldezD (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"Clutters"? Some articles, yes. But a few articles, no. At the least, regardless of what the template docs say, there may be a few articles where the consensus at the article is to include dateranges for something like game show or talk show hosts. This discussion isn't about changing the template docs – it's about "Are there cases where the template docs can/should be ignored?" And the answer to that is obviously "Yes", as WP:GUIDES clearly says "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The question is whether occasional exceptions do apply, and if so where. That's why I suggested the discussion should take place at the Talk page of the actual article of interest to gauge if there's consensus support for this being considered an "exception". However, I agree with AussieLegend that edit warring in this case is absolutely not justified, especially not without a Talk page discussion on the topic first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
meta-discussion involving personal attacks collapsed

Leaving aside that I'm not sure why I'm the one accused of edit warring (notorious edit warrers/wikilawyers TPH and AldezD reverted my revert without discussion, and while misrepresenting even what the guideline said), "don't include dates" isn't as cut-and-dried of a rule for some shows as for others. Omitting dates on an article like Jeopardy! leaves the instant misimpression that there are multiple simultaneous hosts/announcers, or even that long-dead individuals are still involved with the show. I can see the want not to include dates/seasons when the persons get too numerous, as this makes the infobox too large, and would support a revised guideline that said as much. E.g., more than four hosts/announcers/etc, no dates. If accessibility is an issue, the small tags can be removed; the aesthetic benefit they provide is probably minimal. (But I think accessibility is a pretext here. Wikipedia has small text everywhere, particularly in infoboxes.) Robert K S (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What Jeopardy is doing is the exact reason that it's started to not do that in the guideline. The purpose of an infobox is to quickly see "important" details about the subject. Bogging it down with various dates for specific networks, specific directors, etc, is not creating something that is easy to quickly scan though. When you have to start creating a "small" option and line break throughout the infobox, you're definitely going to far. That type of information is better left in prose format, or god forbid maybe a table that outlines that more clearly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This comment doesn't address, and the guideline doesn't seem to appreciate, how misleading it is to leave historical data in an infobox without any indication that it is historical, i.e., obsolete. Without the dates, the infobox misleads the reader into thinking that the show has multiple hosts, or is still broadcast in the obsolete 480i standard. What is the purpose of an infobox if not to give the reader an accurate gist of the factual essentials of the article subject at a glance? A guideline that favors to mislead, with the excuse that further reading would clear things up, is not a sound policy. Robert K S (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
notorious edit warrers/wikilawyers - Not really appropriate. Concentrate on content, not on the contributor.
TPH and AldezD reverted my revert without discussion - TPH removed the small text and years with the edit summary "tweak per infobox television".[8] You reverted him with the edit summary "Removing the dates is misleading, and I don't see where infobox television requires or justifies this".[9] TPH reverted you with the edit summary "will let you know on talk page"[10] and then tried to start a discussion on your talk page.[11] You didn't particpate in that discussion. Instead, you reverted again, crticising the infobox documentation in your summary.[12] AldezD then reverted with the summary "Template:Infobox television state 'Years or seasons should not be included.'"[13] At this point, with two editors reverting you, you should have sat up and thought, "Maybe we should be discussing this" but you didn't. You completely ignored the discussion and went for the revert key each time. Please don't say that nobody tried to discuss because TPH certainly tried.
I'm not sure why I'm the one accused of edit warring - ^^^^^^^^^^ is why.
Wikipedia has small text everywhere, particularly in infoboxes. - Two wrongs don't make a right! Please don't try to justify including "errors" in articles by saying it happens elsewhere. That's justification for fixing problems elsewhere, not for including them in every article. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether you are friends with TPH and AldezD and are part of their little decade-old cabal, because the description you provide is a mischaracterization of the edit activity and my attempt to discuss this issue, in the proper place, which is not my talk page, but on the talk pages associated with the template guidelines allegedly being followed. Which, they weren't; TPH and AldezD fabricated the notion that the guidelines say remove dates for all fields. Only a few fields indicate that dates should be omitted. Anyway, I'm not interested in bickering or arguing about who killed who, I'm interested in promoting a serious discussion about the utility and propriety of these guidelines of unclear provenance and at-best contested consensus, which you haven't responded to. Cheers. Robert K S (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to wonder whether you are friends with TPH and AldezD and are part of their little decade-old cabal - This is a demonstration of paranoia that has no place in this discussion.
the description you provide is a mischaracterization of the edit activity - No, it's directly representative of the edit history, just as this WP:AN3 discussion is directly representative of your edit-warring at ENIAC.
I'm interested in promoting a serious discussion - I really don't believe that you are based on what I've seen. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Todd (now Emily) VanDerWerff having come out as transgender

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Todd (now Emily) VanDerWerff having come out as transgender. A permalink for it is here. As some or all here may know, VanDerWerff is commonly used as a source for the critical reception section in television show articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation for Ex on the Beach

It seems wrong that the British season-pages for Category:Ex_on_the_Beach don't have "British" in the disambiguation, while the article on the show as a whole is at Ex on the Beach (British TV series). I'm not sure which of these is incorrect (or whether it should be "UK" versus "British"). Can somebody propose the correct move to make this consistent? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

As there is Ex on the Beach (American season 2) per WP:TVSEASON the season articles should indeed be Ex on the Beach (British series 1) etc. --Gonnym (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, links should be fixed to the correct targets and not to Ex on the Beach which should be either a dab page, or a franchise page (if someone wants to write it). --Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

there ist the wrong link for Marc Benjamin (Dutch DJ c Benjamin Latupapua instead of Swiss actor Marc Benjamin Stähelin) in the English and Dutch version of this page. I tried to change it but I'm not sure it has worked... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.6.78 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Swapping of directed and written by columns

For pretty much any series, we see the writer(s) listed first followed by the director(s); as such, I'm wondering if we should follow that order here as well and swap things in the template. If this change were to go through, we wouldn't even need to go through and update articles, we would just update the template. The code in the articles would show directed by -> written by, but the display would show written by -> directed by. I can confirm this as I tried playing around with things a while ago by placing the "director" and "DirectedBy" parameters after the "writer" and "WrittenBy" parameters, and the output still showed directed by -> written by. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hm. I'm neither for or against this, kinda neutral. I can see the benefits of it for shows that do list the writer first, but do we know for certain if writers are always listed first, or at least a majority? Who is more "important", for want of a better word, to an episode? (Correct in that order of parameters in the code doesn't matter, but it does look nicer; I created {{subst:User:Alex 21/subst-list}} to help with that. All that would need updating is two lines in Module:Episode table and Module:Episode list.) -- /Alex/21 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No dog in this at all, but I kinda suspect that the director is listed last in the opening credits to *enhance* their prominence, i.e. credits are listed in *ascending* order of importance. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this change. Exaclty what Chaswmsday said is correct; the director is last because they are in fact the most important credited, hence they get credit just before the episode "officially" begins. Note this is actually the same for the ordering of producers, with usually the more important and often show creators being the last credited producers in the opening credits. - Brojam (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that the directors are still listed last and that should be reflected in the columns. It should be order based, not importance based. (And besides that, that seems to be an original research statement, anyway. What supports that directors are the most important?) If the starring cast of a series is D, C, B, A, that is the order we display them as. Often times the starring cast who is credited last gets paid the most, but even if A gets paid the most, D is still listed first because their name comes up first. And producers are no different. We list them in the order they are displayed. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
We give more importance to the executive producers over the co-producers, producers, supervising producers, and co-executive producers, with in fact, all but one not even being listed in articles; yet all of those producers are credited before the EPs. - Brojam (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Co-producers and supervising producers are not producers. Likewise, co-executive producers are not executive producers. None of those are even listed since they're of minor importance—we only list producers and executive producers. Just like we don't list co-stars because they are background characters, unlike guest stars. And executive producers are already listed before the producers in series' credits, so if we're going to use that earlier argument that those listed toward the end are of more importance than those toward the beginning, that would make producers more important than executive producers. The logic is flawed, and stating that a credit like directed by is more important than a credit like written by simply because it is listed last is, again, pure WP:OR. Refer back to my starring cast example. Are we going to start allowing people to order cast lists based on who their favorites are? No. It's the same principle here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Teleplay by and story by order

Answered. Possible by custom parameters. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Similarly, I see that for the teleplay stuff, it's shown as teleplay by -> story by, so perhaps Template:StoryTeleplay should be Template:TeleplayStory, with teleplay being on the top and story being on the bottom. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The redirect already exists, so if you wish to use it as {{TeleplayStory}}, you're already more than welcome to. -- /Alex/21 22:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I just tested and "teleplay by" is still showing up on the bottom instead of the top. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
That's because all it is is a redirect, the order doesn't change. I don't see the need to match the order of the credits directly, as long as we match the credits themselves exactly. -- /Alex/21 05:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Then it was pointless to post that as that's not what I was asking about. I clearly specified I was asking about the order of the teleplay and story display in my OP earlier. And yes, order does matter. That would be like saying starring/main cast order doesn't matter as long as we get the names right. No. If the credits have John Smith -> David Anderson -> Tom Rogers, we put John Smith -> David Anderson -> Tom Rogers. Putting Tom Rogers -> David Anderson -> John Smith or David Anderson -> John Smith -> Tom Rogers or whatever would be incorrect. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is a consensus to update this, then certainly. You can always use the extra label parameters for now. -- /Alex/21 05:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template updated. -- /Alex/21 11:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Canadian ratings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Brother 21 (American season)#Canadian ratings . Brojam (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:The WB for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:The WB is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:The WB until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northamerica1000 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Constantine (TV series)#Unproduced episode and the episode table

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Constantine (TV series)#Unproduced episode and the episode table. More opinions needed here – Issue is: Should unproduced episodes be included in the episodes table? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Blood & Treasure#Two-hour pilot episode counts ONE episode

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Blood & Treasure#Two-hour pilot episode counts ONE episode. More opinions needed here – it's the perennial issue: when a pilot is broadcast as a two-hour pilot, does it count as one episode in the episode table, or two? IOW, do we follow sources, or the production codes? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dynasty (2017 TV series)#About Michael Michele as Dominique Deveraux promoted to be a series regular

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dynasty (2017 TV series)#About Michael Michele as Dominique Deveraux promoted to be a series regular . — YoungForever(talk) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

"No. in season" column

Is the "No. in season" column always required in an episode list? I'm thinking specifically of a TV show such as the American version of Celebrity Big Brother, for which the episodes are called Episode 1, Episode 2, etc. Our episodes list has a "No. in season" column, which seems completely redundant to me, given the titles of the individual episodes. The column could easily be removed without any loss of information to our readers. Any thoughts? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguably in that case, you should actually get rid of the "episode title" column (because the episodes aren't in fact titled), but leave the "no. in season" column. However, I don't know if it's possible to do this, as I've never tried... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Total Drama All-Stars and Pahkitew Island

I'm a little confused by this article - Total Drama All-Stars and Pahkitew Island (and probably the others of the series as well). As far as I can tell it's a fake animated reality series TV series about an animated series about a fake reality series (edit: fixed description), yet it uses all those (horrible) reality tables in the article and since (I'm assuming) the page was too large, split the actual relevent information, the episode list, to a different article List of Total Drama All-Stars and Pahkitew Island episodes. Is this really how these articles should be? --Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a fake series. It actually aired. I've never seen it but I did have some experience with the articles back in (I think) 2015. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean fake series, but a real series about a fake reality series, as in a mock-reality series. --Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I would support removing all of the tables as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE – it is not the job of encyclopedia to give a "blow-by-blow" synopsis of what happens on a reality TV show, especially one that's not even real. I would post to the Talk page of the article, cite this discussion, and then remove all of the WP:FANCRUFT, and then likely merge the LoE back to the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

JK! Studios up for deletion

Start up studio staffed by Conan refugees. Sources exist and can be improved. WP:NEXIST, and WP:Notability questions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pennyworth (TV series)#About Epix Schedule of Episode Titles

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pennyworth (TV series)#About Epix Schedule of Episode Titles . — YoungForever(talk) 14:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Bigg Boss Tamil 3

Do any of you edit Big Brother/Bigg Boss-related articles? Bigg Boss Tamil 3 could probably use some policing. Something like 10-15% of the page is written in bold face, and I'm not exactly clear on what content is pertinent or what content is just fancruft. Especially note the expandable table under Weekly summary. Any extra eyes would be appreciated. I semi-protected the article after a couple of anons were taking ownership of it, and as soon as I did, they finally logged into their user accounts. SMH... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cloak & Dagger (TV series)#Split the character section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cloak & Dagger (TV series)#Split the character section . This has been going since April 2019. — YoungForever(talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

How best to deal with wall of names at Nach Baliye

Hi all, any thoughts on how to best deal with the wall of names in the infobox at Nach Baliye? I deleted them on the basis that they were asinine but anon seems to disagree. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

For such large lists I'd list none in the infobox at all and instead provide a link to the relevant section in the body of the article. Obviously, the sections will need to be written. That they haven't been already is unhelpful. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass roundabout transclusions in television series articles; Discussion at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Transclusions

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#Transclusions. -- /Alex/21 09:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Shaun Benson as Ezekiel

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Boys (2019 TV series)#Shaun Benson as Ezekiel. — YoungForever(talk) 14:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A lot of users/ IPs are adding Netflix links as external links Roma Daredevil calling it the official page like here. So is it fine too add Netflix links for original programming as they might not be according to external links policy (WP:ELNO). Sid95Q (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say those do qualify as the "official website" for these, in that they contain "official" information on them and is akin to linking to the producers of a film/TV series (e.g. Avengers: Endgame#External links), though arguably this does run afoul of WP:ELNO #6 and #14. So objections to listing these should probably be discussed on the article's Talk page. However, when added to the 'EL' section, the {{official website}} template should be used, not what was done in that diff. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Well if the original broadcaster or producer hosts a site for a series or movie, I'd consider that an "official website" of sorts, hence it could be linked in principal. Whether is actually should be included in a specifc case imho depends on the material offerend the site, that os not hidden behind a paywall.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe the Netflix webpages for these are publicly available and not behind the paywall (at least in the U.S.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would say it's cool as long as it's a series/film made by Netflix.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I would say that the Netflix links are the official websites for Netflix originals, and we can include them. — Bilorv (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Reality articles have been doing this for years, linking to the official site which usually streams episodes. --Gonnym (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the Netflix links are the official websites for Netflix originals. And if there is a production website for the Netflix original series, then it's only a production website. — YoungForever(talk) 19:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is appropriate to add a link to its Netflix page if it's a global original, but not if it's an acquisition/exclusive distribution of something --Thornstrom (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
A lot of things have official retail pages. However, we don't necessarily link them. That depends on whether the links provide value past what the article would include if it were to reach Featured status. The Netflix page only seems to contain a synopsis (redundant to our plot sections) and trailer. Wikipedia is not a database nor an indiscriminate collection of links. Therefore, , in the general case, I'd say no, unless local consensus on an article has determined that the link adds to the article, is not replaceable, and if there isn't a better official link. Opencooper (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
In most cases I think Netflix films don't tend to have their own websites, and I think trailers can be helpful, after all 'a picture says more than a thousand words', and a video is hundreds of pictures.★Trekker (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with User:Opencooper. Also there is an inherent want or need to expand the "External links" section using several "standard" templates that oftentimes swells the section from 5 to 7, 9, or even 11 (and more) links that is far past any amount considered appropriate. If there is already a longer list in the section and Netflix is determined to be useful or "official" in that instance there needs to be trimming to allow for the addition and not just "add yet another link". I recently trimmed some links at My Favorite Wife, as well as gave talk page reasoning, that was reverted with only the edit summary "More or less de facto standard; if you don't like it, take it up at the film wikiproject.", then after-the-fact talk page comments "Have you not noticed that TCM, and to a lesser extent AllMovie, is a standard external link on the majority of films?" Different project but the links are common across Wikipedia and the section is being allowed to grow without boundaries. That is the point. Agreeing that Netflix can be an "official" site will mean that, absent clear restraints, the site could (and likely will) be added to every Netflix original article. Otr500 (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
If we simply have it as standard that it's only for Netflix originals I don't see it being a huge problem.★Trekker (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree with ★Trekker – you include the Netflix page as an 'EL' if it's a "Netflix original" (i.e. produced by Netflix), but not if it's just "streamed" by Netflix. That's an easy dividing line to follow. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
As long as I don't end up "butting heads" if one or more well meaning editors should decide that Netflix is the new site to start adding to an "External links section on every "Original Netflix" article. My concerns are: 1)- that just locally considering something "official" doesn't really mean it is actually defined as such from a broad community perspective, 2)- Considering it "official", without any other consideration, would be granting the site an exception (as an "official" site") to do just that-- to be added to every article -- it has information on. What may not be perceived as "a huge problem" could be the unintended consequences. I don't know how many "Netflix original" articles that would include but it could be many. I already struggle with the inherent need of some editors to add to the "External links" section for no apparent reason other than possibly the advancement or advertisement of that site that causes external link clutter or link farming and have to sometimes get into extended conversations of the need to trim when sites are defended, even if they provide no unique information or other reason that might allow inclusion. What was once an accepted one or maybe two sites listed in the external links section has now grown to 4 and many times 5, 6, 7, 8, or more. The majority of the time the added sites contain no value more than clutter.
I would offer that Netflix might offer more information than most of the others sites inundating the section so will not jump and holler if it is deemed "official". Please be supportive, if it is going to be regarded as "official", if I run across an article with 4 or more links, including Netflix ("official site") and I arbitrarily pick one or more to remove as maintenance to at least have no more than 4. This is the number I choose as a maximum before taking some action, that is probably one or two more than really needed, when I see a bloated "External links" section. If I delete to be less than 4 it is because a review showed those removed were just taking up space on that article serving no other purpose.
With that in mind please support not adding the site to any article (if it is not already there) containing three or more links without trimming the section. This would be in line with the more broad community standards for External links. Also, if consensus deems to consider it "official", not trying to be too demanding just hopefully avoiding potential issues, add (official) so I will ignore it per this discussion. I appreciate any help given. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
granting the site an exception (as an "official" site") to do just that-- to be added to every article Not per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Netflix should be an insertion of last resort. --Izno (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New page

Dose anyone want to help with Draft:List of animated shows by episode count Fanoflionking 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Dennis Rader

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mindhunter (TV series)#Dennis Rader. More opinions are needed here to reach a consensus. — YoungForever(talk) 15:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Re-cut episodes in LoE?

I am working on the List of Money Heist episodes list. The show's original run in Spain had 15 episodes, but Netflix re-cut the episodes into 22 for international distribution (which affects most en-wiki readers). Are there shows with similar "problems" (incl. maybe animes)? I'd like to learn how their episode lists handled the situation. – sgeureka t•c 12:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

In general, in the episode table, you go with what they did in the "country of origin" (so in this case, that would be 15 episodes). In prose, you can mention what Netflix did, esp. if you can find at reliable secondary source that discusses this – which you have done, so I think the current situation is fine. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's fine as it is, but I want to know if there are better ways to do it. For example, are there shows that use timelines like The_Rolling_Stones#Timeline to link up the two ways of episodes cutting, or notes for each episode, or... ? Just looking for inspiration. :-) – sgeureka t•c 12:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
You might be able to "adapt" a timeline figure for that purpose (I'm not sure). You might want to start a discussion on the Talk page about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if a timeline like what is on the Rolling Stones would work. That's about identifying changes to the band that fundamentally changed the band. You're describing a re-edit that took basically 1 episode and turned it into 2 episodes (multiple times). The content is still the same, they merely decided to cut it up. That's no different than a miniseries on TV being put into a single viewing on DVD (just the reverse). I think what you have, where you just explain that Netflix decided to re-edit the show to be shorter programs across more individual episodes is sufficient and probably the "best" way to do it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest section

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Manifest (TV series)#About the Guest section. — YoungForever(talk) 17:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Escape the Night

Hi! It's not exactly in this area, but a YouTube paid series Escape the Night has some issues with copyvio and WP:FANCRUFT. Any help in cleaning up the issues would be appreciated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Best Ever Trivia Show

I'm not sure that Best Ever Trivia Show meets the notability guidelines. The show's been on the air for three months and doesn't even have an IMDb page. The only sources I've found so far are press releases and non-notable fan blogs. Should it go to AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Dark comedy as TV genre?

Is dark comedy a TV genre suitable for the |genre= parameter of the infobox? Invader Zim's genres are well-sourced, but it seems odd to describe it that way and I don't find it listed at List of genres#Film and television formats and genres. I note that M*A*S*H (TV series) is also indicated as a dark comedy. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "dark comedy" is a comedy "sub-genre". As long as there are WP:RS's describing a show that way, it can be listed under genre. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

White border around reference?

For my own edification, is there any way to add a white border around a reference if we're pasting it atop a dark background? Note List of Jacob Two-Two (TV series) episodes#Season 1 (2003). I know the alternative is to change the arbitrary color scheme, but I still think I should know if there is a way to do this. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have converted the wikitable to an {{Episode table}}, which does that automatically. The same should be done for the other four tables in that page, but i don't have the time to do it today. Radiphus (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Great, thank you! I've tended to three of the remaining ones, but I still have to convert all of S5 to the standard format. (I don't have time for that right now either, so I'll have to tackle it later.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Loose Women

Editors are still removing cast from the infobox at Loose Women. There has also been a request to restore the ridiculous table of which presenter sat in which chair on a particular night that I mentioned in this discussion. Some extra eyes on this article would therefore be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The first thing I notice in looking at this article, is the list-table of "presenters", in addition to violating MOS:ACCESS three times with bad 'rowspan' use, also includes an unsourced "episode count" column which should be removed as per WP:TVCAST. Aside from that, I agree with your point – if they were ever "main cast credited", even once or twice, then they would qualify to be listed in the infobox cast list. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Rowspan use and episode counts fixed at List of Loose Women presenters (table is transcluded). -- /Alex/21 13:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Conflicts over terminology

The user Bankster (talk · contribs) has been making edits to various articles on specialty television channels in an effort to "standardize" certain terms.

However, there has been disregard for regional use of specific terms to describe such services, particularly the editor's specific insistence on using the term "pay television" to refer to any channel not free-to-air. "Pay television" typically refers to things like HBO, standalone premium services not in bundles. In the U.S., there isn't a clear term, and "cable channel" is used most often since that was the original form of multichannel television. In Canada, specialty channel is not only a common term, but also has specific legal implications, since licenses are required from our regulator. At the same time, I was wanting to shift the Canadian specialty television articles to refer to them all as "specialty television" (or pay television where applicable) channels as opposed to the specific discretionary service category, as the former is more informative because pretty much every channel falls within "discretionary services" now.

But anyway, Bankster has often undone reversions to his changes with no explanation, and has made relatively few attempts to discuss their changes with other editors. There is clearly consensus against his changes, as seen by me and others. I think any mass changes in terms, especially ones that use misnomers, should be discussed first. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Anthology series categories

So, we currently have Category:American anthology television series for anthology series, but would it be worth splitting this category into two for season- and episodic-anthology series? For example, Category:American anthology-season television series for series such as American Crime Story, American Horror Story and Scream, and Category:American anthology-episode television series for series such as Heartstrings, Into the Dark, Two Sentence Horror Stories and The Twilight Zone. -- /Alex/21 07:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but – the problem is that WP:RS don't really distinguish series on this basis. IOW, they just call Fargo an "anthology series", and don't differentiate how it's a different kind of "anthology" series from, say, The Twilight Zone. So, while such a split would actually be useful, I'm not sure there's support for it in sourcing... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

The Masked Singer guessing table

So I recently reverted a user's edit on The Masked Singer (American season 1), stating, "Moreso trivial information"- it was basically a table which outlines what the panelists had as their main guess for who was under a mask (before being unmasked) and whether they were correct or wrong. I could be entirely wrong in my revert, but it just seems like something more trivial that I would find on a Wikia page as opposed to being on a Wikipedia page.

The user has since added a talk page comment about it, but not sure what to respond. I've been looking through guidelines of Wikipedia and well as MOS:TV (as well as this WikiProject's talk archives), and the best I could find was WP:NOTSTATS. Now again, I'm not sure but my revert could be entirely wrong, but it does seem more trivial. Yes, as the user has pointed out, "Isn't the whole basis of this show about guessing who the masked singers are? Half of the minutes are dedicated to the clues and the panelists trying to interpret them."- but I would think that the clues given for each masked singer can be interpreted however anyone wants to interpret it. Just to give some more context, here is an example of a masked singer reveal with the panelists' final guesses as to who it is.

WP:NPOVFAQ and WP:NPOV might (?) come into play in this too, but I really don't know now. I'm struggling between it being encyclopedic information and trivial information better suited for a Wikia currently. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animation#Lots_of_unsourced,_non-notable_articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Carnegie Hall Christmas Concert

I would appreciate some comments at this discussion, whatever your opinion may be.4meter4 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves of Dynasty (2017 TV series) season articles

This is just an FYI for anyone involved in the season articles for Dynasty (2017 TV series). All three have been moved without discussion after an editor who should know better submitted a request at WP:RM/TR claiming that the moves were uncontroversial.[14] This resulted in a mess at at the LoE page and all 3 season articles that TAnthony was fortunately quick to fix. One reason why I felt it necessary to mention this here is that the original season article pages are now redirects to a disambiguation page that does not mention the season articles at all, so it's a bit of a dead end for most readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I knew this day was coming because technically the new disambiguation is correct, but the articles seemed fine to me since there are no season articles for the 1981 series (just an episode list). I decided to just fix all the links and episode redirects rather than revert or challenge the move. It was disappointing that George Ho pushed these moves through but didn't bother to try and fix any of the havoc they created (like the episode list issue you noted above). I agree that the redirects to the disambiguation page may be a problem that I'm not sure how to resolve.— TAnthonyTalk 16:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
IMO, they weren't "uncontroversial moves", and should have gone through a WP:RM proposal because, as you say, the 1981 series doesn't even have "season" articles. So the move represents (currently) "unnecessary disambiguation", and I suspect a RM proposal to move them like this would have failed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Table of appearances for a documentary participant

Not sure if this is the project to ask, but can't think of one better. Article is a retired physicist who appeared as a main guest in multiple episodes of a PBS documentary interview series, over the years. Added a table of appearances at the end of the article, was deleted as "Way too much". Thought such tables were pretty standard -- not for documentary appearances? Hyperbolick (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Details, please? Which article?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
diff. Article has been contentious for other reasons, so just a symptom of that. But perhaps table is inappropriate for documentaries. Fine with that if it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion of the co-panelists is definitely WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My advice? – These TV appearances can be handled in a line or two of prose (preferably sourced to something). In this case, I don't think it's necessary to list every episode that they appeared on on that TV program in a table... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I accept that. Glad to get that level of explanation from somebody. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

TV articles miscategorized as films

A bot was instructed to change all "Category:Screenplays by..." to "Category:Films with screenplays by..." Unfortunately some of these were TV episodes or series. I don't know that anyone has actually gone though and fixed this yet. Further reading: User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 051#Are TV episodes considered films? @BrownHairedGirl, Loriendrew, MER-C, Marcocapelle, Newshunter12, Woodensuperman, and JJMC89:. Probably some query to identify the TV articles would be helpful. –xenotalk 13:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I did this PetScan query, I looked for articles that contained {{Infobox television episode}} that were in Category:Films with screenplays by writer to a depth of 5 sub-categories. I ended up with 850 results. - X201 (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
By adding {{Infobox television}} I now get 1489 results, are there any other templates that would specifically identify a TV episode/series/whatever? - X201 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
There a some false positives in the last one, just trying to work out what is triggering them. But at least it's a starting point. - X201 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

right use this one. 1026 hits. Previous problem was a sub cat looping around to another cat. This is a good starting point. - X201 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I've just discovered this Category:Television programs by writer which as well as skewing the results a little, also does the job of the proposed new category mentioned in the linked discussion. At the very least they should be related. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Terror and its season articles

The Terror is an anthology series which originally housed all of its related content in its main article, before it was split into season articles somewhat recently. A short discussion happened on its talk page, but nothing really came from it.

This is what the main article looked like before it was split into two season articles. You can compare that to the current version for differences. The differences? Essentially none, except the recurring cast list now only exists in the season articles. I brought this point up at the talk page, for being the sole creation for the season articles to exist: to house an exhaustive cast list similar to IMDB. Even so, there's no reason we can't also list recurring characters in the main article, this is a normal practice. Now looking at the season articles, The Terror (season 1) and The Terror: Infamy, they contain zero original content that was not already present in the main article before the merge. Simply, there's no reason why this all can't exist in one article, as the main article is nowhere near large enough that it needs to be split and the season articles are barebones and expand on nothing that didn't already exist. The only way for the season articles to exist if there was no main article, but I doubt that would ever happen. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Definitely agree that they need to be merged back into the parent article. -- /Alex/21 14:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Since we're on the subject, the season five page from Fear the Walking Dead contains zero original content and what content(Production section) is on the page is copy pasted from the main article. If this rule has to be applied, don't do it selectively.
Just to throw some more examples out there. The Good Place (Seasons 1-3) pages are nothing more than episode tables, ratings sections & critical response sections. None of which really warrant a season page. The same could be said for dozens, probably hundreds of season pages. I'm bringing this up because it would be ludicrous to apply the criteria suggested and do nothing about the other pages. Esuka (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fear has five seasons and almost 70 episodes and is renewed for a sixth, this is where WP:TVSPLIT becomes applicable. Fear the Walking Dead (season 5) was a draft that when then moved to the article mainspace by an admin. You are more than welcome to WP:AFD the article if you wish. The thing is, we have to do this "selectively", one-by-one; it's an impossible task to look at thousands of articles. I am simply re-raising an issue I had from the talk page, to find a wider consensus. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't excuse that the article doesn't meet the criteria of a season page and the admin should have reviewed the main article before approving. I also raised The Good Place as you are involved heavily in those season pages but you didn't seem to care enough to raise the same issue you are now about them. Would you mind explaining why? Esuka (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
You're arguably right about The Good Place, they could probably be redirected/merged. I was planning on creating the season 4 article, but I realized there wasn't really anything independent from the main article beyond the basics (episode list) to add, so I didn't bother. Feel free to raise the issue at their respective talk pages. However, to the topic at hand: there's no denying The Terror season are not problematic; season 1 is a direct copy of the main article with an empty production section and same for season 2, which doesn't even have plot summaries. I understand that there are probably dozens of other problem articles, but I am simply talking about The Terror here. The sole reason to create the season articles was to eliminate the recurring cast list from the main article, which by itself not a good reason nor is there any reason why the recurring characters can't be listed in the main article. The cast section isn't even that elaborate, it's just actor and character names, no descriptions or anything. Thank you for your thoughts. I will wait until/if others chime in. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't care about season pages either way. I just can't take such a badly enforced guideline seriously and won't be upholding it when I see it broken. I felt the examples were worth mentioning as those pages broke the guideline but only this series was being mentioned by yourself. I wasn't in any way criticising you. If it seemed like that I apologize. Esuka (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I have merged the season articles back into the parent article. -- /Alex/21 03:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Television in the United Kingdom

Portal:Television in the United Kingdom has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Television in the United Kingdom. Certes (talk) 11:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Police procedural

Opinions sought at Talk:Police procedural#Merger proposal, please. Meticulo (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The War of the Worlds

Would anyone like to take a look at the above articles? I came across the three of them today after the British series just had its first trailer released, and had to make a multitude of edits to format them properly ([15], [16], [17]), and I've had to move all three of the articles to conform with NCTV ([18], [19], [20]). -- /Alex/21 02:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

American Beauty Star Wikipedia Page Edit

Good Afternoon,

I came across the American Beauty Star Wikipedia page and I wanted to get feedback on edits I thought the page could use.

I found the information page for season 1 and 2 that shows hosts, judges, and contestants on my source [1] so I wanted to add that information to the Wikipedia page. I would also add my source under the references section.

Would someone be able to advise if they think these would be acceptable edits for this Wikipedia page or if you see any issues with the edits I am proposing?

Thank you so much,

Ariverae777 (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you want to add, but WP:Be bold and just add it if it comes from a WP:Reliable source. If something is not perfectly right, someone else will come along and fix it later. If you're still uncertain, you can also just add a bit, wait for a day if someone reverts it, and if not, continue adding the rest. – sgeureka t•c 06:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "American Beauty Star".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_29&oldid=1045694483"