Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 39

Good examples of List of programs broadcast by [network name]

Are there any good examples of a well-crafted "List of programs broadcast by <network name>"? I just need one or two. Alternatively, an example or two of a decent TV network article that might also include programming tables. I have an issue at Surya TV and I don't think the other editor has likely seen what a quality article of this sort is supposed to look like. This one has a weird # of episodes column with content like "207+/1353". ??? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I also would like an answer to this – it will be very useful if we can point to one of these articles and say "This is an example of how you want to do an article like this.", as well as a bad example so as to say, "You definitely don't want to do the article this way..." --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"Upcoming redirects" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Upcoming redirects. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 9#Upcoming redirects until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Game of Thrones peer review

Hello all, Game of Thrones has an open peer review subpage in preparation for a possible featured article nomination, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Game of Thrones/archive5. Of course, any comments and feedback to improve the article are welcome and encouraged. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Does every page need a ratings table?

With TVbythenumbers dead and Programming Insider not publishing any DVR ratings data since August 15 there's nothing to put in them. Variety seem to be completely random when they do releases and even then those are for broadcast shows and not cable. There's no other source online as far as I know which publishes these numbers.

Without wanting to sound like I'm rambling should tables with at least five or six weeks of no DVR numbers be deleted or hidden? Nielsen releases these numbers weekly but if no website can be bothered to publish why clutter pages with empty DVR tables? 81.96.245.175 (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The answer is no. Especially with recent series, the odds are old-style ratings will be meaningless, and so these kinds of series almost certainly don't need ratings tables. Indeed, they may not even need a ratings column in the episodes table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary. If there is a Ratings DVR table, it should be hidden for now until there are DVR ratings for the DVR table. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, The Hollywood Reporter's ratings might be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

But, by the same token, if it becomes clear that meaningful (i.e. more than just a minor scattering of data) DVR ratings will never be forthcoming, it should ultimately be removed/deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks favre1fan93 that solves the broadcast table issue. I'll start updating tables later today. 81.96.245.175 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Programming Insider has resumed publishing DVR data, at least for Live+3. Check the "final ratings" articles. As noted above, The Hollywood Reporter has also regularly reported Live+3 since the TV season started. Data is also occasionally given in network press releases (especially ABC). While it's less than it used to be, there is not a lack of data. Heartfox (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In Treatment (American TV series) requested move

Please see this discussion, thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone here understand Polish?

Rodzinka.pl is a new article accepted at AfC today. A lot of cleanup has been done but there are some outstanding tasks that need to be completed. The first is the infobox, which appears to have been copied straight from the Polish Wikipedia. I have moved the Polish text to the talk page since I don't understand Polish (ironic since my dearly departed wife of 35 years was Polish) and I have replaced it with our infobox. The article needs various fixes in other areas as well but the biggest problem is the Polish infobox. Help fixing this would be appreciated. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A billing status matter at Legend of the Seeker

We need opinions on the following matter: Talk:Legend of the Seeker#Craig Parker's Billing Status.

Favre1fan93, Masem, Bignole, and/or Alex 21, can we get your help on this on the article talk page? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "opinions". All anyone needs to do is watch the opening credits of a season 2 episode with Craig Parker and they'll see he was billed a guest star. I checked myself and that's why I made the edit. Bluerules (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability of Draft:The Wacky Word Show

Note: I removed the text, it was a copy of the official web site.

Anyone from Canada familiar with this show? Is it notable?

It has supposedly won "Best Performance Children's or Youth Non-Fiction Program or Series Best Performance Children's or Youth Fiction Program or Series" but there's no citation, and the official web site doesn't make that claim.

If it's a no-name TV show I'll reject the draft outright even though it hasn't been submitted yet. If the topic might be notable, then please help improve the draft.

By the way, the publicity image in the draft and other publicity images uploaded by the uploader to the Commons are likely copyright violations, I've tagged them as such, so they will probably disappear in a week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Color Table design (urgent help required) for Idol

For editors in the group, we need help to complete the change of color template design in all articles so that it will reflect the way it currently presented in the post-ABC era (season 16 and later). Up until now, most editors had done most of the maintenance work but up until the pre-live show stage on August (for season 4), and no work has done yet up until now. If you are seeing this, please help do your best to make it consistent and help with the updates of the color schemes. This goes the same for the other seasons until season 15 (the pre-FOX era) as well, and other Idol season as well.

The color design was more contrast and bright, and so far it has been used in other shows such as SPOP Sing! (season 1) (so far only one show has done that using the template, for the record). The reason for the change is because that the blue box saying elimination and the gray header are not properly contrast and a bold typeface is heavily used for elimination. The colorful design is much more appealing, appropriate, and consistent like the one used for displaying results in other singing reality shows such as The Voice (American TV series) and The X Factor (British TV series).

I just want to look for editors to help because I (plus some other editors) am busy. Thanks for lending a hand. TVSGuy (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

When to add project to filmography?

Though this might be more of a biographical question, but when do we typically add a future television event to someone's filmography? If an actor is slated to appear in a film, we typically don't add that credit until filming begins. For television work, do we add that when they start taping, or once the thing airs? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct, basically as per WP:NFF. If it's simply been "announced", you can put it in the article prose (sourced), but only there. Once it starts filming, then you can add it to the Filmography (and that should be sourced to verify that filming has begun). And, even then, I would argue it's not strictly necessary to add it to the Filmography even at that point – really, there's no good reason not to wait until a release date has been announced as per WP:NOHURRY and WP:NOTNEWS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think what you're asking touches on actors being more likely to be cut from TV appearances than from films. Ultimately, just go with the sources. If it's announced but not "confirmed", i.e. filming hasn't begun, then it can be in prose but not filmography as IJBall says. After that, whatever the sources say should be reflected, up to release. Then you need to check the appearance in the credits. WP:V is the main policy here. Kingsif (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox television: list_episodes

{{Infobox television}} list_episodes current says:

If a Wikipedia "List of" article exists for the show's episodes, put its name here.

Anyone object to adding:

If the list of episodes is in the same article, put a section link here, e.g. #Episodes.

Please also contribute to the discussion on the policy that currently says avoid links to sections of an article from its Infobox.

Jim Craigie (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:F Is for Family § Rename

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:F Is for Family § Rename. The discussion concerns the use of "Is" vs. "is" in the article's title, quoting MOS:CT. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mars University

Editors may want to keep an eye on Mars University. Earlier today an editor unilaterally changed the content of the article (about an episode of Futurama) to instead discuss an academic institution. Another editor subsequently nominated the article for speedy deletion as they felt the new content was promotional; I'm assuming they didn't realize that content was new and had nothing to do with the article's stable content. I've deleted the speedy notice and advised the first editor that that kind of wholesale change to an article's content is inappropriate. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 03:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ScreenPlay episode list

Would appreciate some comments on ScreenPlay on whether to use a "custom" episode table (as is currently used), or use one using the standard television templates, which can be seen on this version. Please also note that the current table was changed 2 days ago meaning that it itself isn't the status-quo either. There are some disagreements on the usage, which is why I'd appreciate other opinions. --Gonnym (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted as per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. Use of "non-standard" episodes tables is definitely something that should be discussed before changing from the standard format. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall:As this article has never used {{Episode table}} or {{Episode list}} until 2 hours ago, per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD you should revert your own edit until consensus is reached. Your edit has broken many links.

Old revision of ScreenPlay contains a table of plays, not a list of episodes: there in not a one-to-one correspondence. A single sortable table is useful in drama anthologies to allow readers to group plays by playwright or director or title over the whole table.

The list is probably currently incomplete.

The BBC did not assign any public numbering to the plays or episodes.

Unfortunately {{Episode list}} is unsuitable for this list because:

1. {{Episode table}} cannot generate a single sortable table
2. there are more plays than episodes
3. there is no consistent numbering of either, and {{Episode list}} requires numbering
4. as the BBC didn’t assign numbers, any numbering is a Wikipedia artifact that shouldn’t be visible to readers
5. the table is very likely to be incomplete at present
6. {{Episode list}} does not generate anchors using titles, but uses numbers where all subsequent numbers would change every time a currently missing play is inserted; therefore the anchors it generates for each Play are likely to be unstable.
7. Only the use of titles gives anchors that remain constant as episodes are added
8. "What links here" only shows anchor links from Redirect pages, not from articles, so it is next to impossible to maintain links to anchors that are likely to change

Jim Craigie (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The infobox used is {{Infobox television}} and the parameter |list_episodes= is used, so saying these are not episodes yet using the parameter which calls these episodes is contradicting. Secondly, a television series is made up of episodes. The fact that the BBC did not assign episode numbers is irrelevant. The numbers represent the broadcast order, which is the default order we list these things. In cases where we list them based on a different order, that is noted in the article. Seeing how the order is the broadcast order (based on the date value), then the numbering is correct. "What links here" only shows anchor links from Redirect pages, not from articles, so it is next to impossible to maintain links to anchors that are likely to change which is why MOS:REDIR says to use redirects rather than direct links with "#" targets. I also love how the terminology is so important to you, saying contains a table of plays, not a list of episodes, yet all the redirects you created, such as Available Light (1990 film), are disambiguated with "film". So are these plays or films? Anyways, it's also besides the point, as if these plays, or films, were created for a single series and broadcast as part of entries in a season, then calling them episodes is perfectly fine. --Gonnym (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I firmly agree with Gonnym's changes and have implemented my own updates and fixes. Episode tables have, thus far, never needed to be sortable. Besides, the sorting function on the raw wikicode table was faulty; in this version, click any of the sorting headers twice and you'll see that the "Series" headers gather at the top in a display of poor functionality. In my edits, I reintroduced the titles as anchors, so they work perfectly fine without issue now and there needs be no argument against it. I see no further argument against the updates other than "they're plays, not episodes", which is a terminology-based argument and nothing to do with the usage of templates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the change to {{Episode table}}. It's what should be used for this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Template:Netflix original ended series" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:Netflix original ended series. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Template:Netflix original ended series until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Editors are still needed to weigh in on this. It was relisted twice already. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-Qualify the article of 31 minutos

Hi. I am an active user on the Spanish Wikipedia, but a few weeks ago I started a full translation of an article to upgrade it. It is the one about the Chilean TV series 31 minutos, and reviewing the rating given to it (the year 2009, when it barely gave simple descriptions), I don't think it is fair considering the time elapsed and the current state of the article. As I have already mentioned, I am not very active in the English Wikipedia (and in fact, I do not handle the language well either), but I wanted to ask anyway if it is possible to re-evaluate the article. Even in the Spanish version it is a good article, so I have no doubt that this one can be too, if given a grammar and spelling check. I'm looking forward to the answer, thanks. --TheUser41 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheUser41: Do you mean the article's current Stub rating?... If so, I agree with you – the current version is at least 'C' class, so I'll update that. (I'll let others who are better at this figure out if it's at 'B' class...) If you want WP:GA status though, then you will need to go through the WP:GA process. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yes, I was referring to that evaluation. I agree to keep it in 'C' class for the time being, thank you very much for updating it. --TheUser41 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons

Thoughts on the Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons and Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons: The Movie articles? Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons started out as a web series, but it only released one episode before the entire content was released as a movie, and the series isn't going ahead anymore. Should the former article be merged into the latter? -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd advocating merging both articles under Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons (with Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons: The Movie redirecting to the former) – there really is no reason for a failed TV series and the movie that resulted from it being two separate articles. It's basically the same topic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd support that. It's same as how how Vixen and Freedom Fighters: The Ray were both CW Seed web series that receive a "The Movie" release, and both releases are detailed under each web series article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I support merging the two articles with Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons: The Movie redirecting to Deathstroke: Knights & Dragons. It seems unnecessary to have two separate articles when the cast and almost everything are the same. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The Mandalorian episode articles

There is currently a discussion regarding the notability of the individual episode articles for The Mandalorian that are being created. Wanted to make the larger TV project aware of this. The discussion can be found here: Talk:The Mandalorian#Episodes articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR listing of Nikki and Paulo

I have nominated Nikki and Paulo for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Zeeshan_Khan_(actor) / Article :Aparna Mishra

I have submitted this new draft today and also the other article with the maximum number of references I can afford to and also while following all Wikipedia guidelines for a Wikipedia article. I request the senior Wikipedian Gods please do look into this article and give in your valuable permission for these articles. --Aleyamma38 (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Flesh and Blood (TV drama)

I've started a stub for a missing article at Flesh and Blood. I'm basically retired from Wikipedia and I don't intend to continue working on it. It would be great if someone could expand it. There is talk of a second season being produced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that this incorrect disambiguated under WP:NCTV – it should either be at Flesh and Blood (TV series) or possibly Flesh and Blood (serial) (though I'm one of the editors that would like to see the latter deprecated). Note that Flesh 'n' Blood also exists, so if WP:SMALLDETAILS isn't enough, then these need to be at Flesh and Blood (British TV series) and Flesh 'n' Blood (American TV series), respectively. So I am going to hold off moving this to see if anyone here has a preference for how to move this first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, no comment on this. I am going to give it 24 more hours, and if no one comments, I'm just going to move this to Flesh and Blood (TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think (TV series) is fine, maybe with a hatnote if there are problems in the future? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to Flesh and Blood (TV series), and add {{Distinguish}} to the top for Flesh 'n' Blood (TV series), and a hatnote on that page too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Bear Witness, Take Action § Request Edit November 19th

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bear Witness, Take Action § Request Edit November 19th. Oceans87 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Vikings: Valhalla

Vikings: Valhalla was created last month and is in need of further eyes to clean it up; I've tried my best to make it encyclopedic, but some of the language was not worthy of a WP:TV article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Composed by what looks like a WP:SPA – never a good sign... My suggestion is that the entire 'Overview' section should be trimmed down to just a one or two sentence 'Premise' section – it's too early from something that in-depth when the series hasn't even premiered yet. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the overview, hence the tag. The SPA's not a good sign, but the article's notable, given that filming has commenced and thus means NFF/NTV. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As an apparent spin-off of Vikings, I think it should be merged into that article for the time being. It's a well-funded Netflix series so it will be completed and aired, and the production seems notable enough with a Deadline article about negative COVID tests affecting filming – but besides that and another Deadline article confirming it was announced, and a What's on Netflix article full of casting and what amounts to not much more than speculation on the plot, there aren't any quality sources for the show as a whole yet. Since there exists a suitable parent page to create a "spin-off" section until more good sources appear, that seems the logical answer. Kingsif (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Question about MOS:TVCHARACTER

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television § Question about MOS:TVCHARACTER. I would appreciate it if more WP:TV regulars would take a look at this discussion, and weigh in on the proper use (or not!) of bolding at our List of Characters (LoC) articles, and whether MOS:TV should be revised about this. Thank you --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Bots editing Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous?

The following IP users have edited the page Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous to repeatedly add the same false information:

• 37.162.118.176 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.160.6.195 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.160.154.250 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.160.200.111 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.162.206.43 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.162.182.224 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.162.214.130 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.161.215.220 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.162.23.162 - (edt) - (from Italy)
• 37.162.137.142 - (edit) - (from Italy)

• 37.161.223.138 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.160.62.84 - (two edits) - (from Italy)
• 37.163.97.110 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.163.163.159 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.161.150.68 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.160.138.145 - (three consecutive edits) - (from Italy)
• 37.161.222.118 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 193.206.252.7 - (they made four edits) - (from Italy)
• 37.162.174.87 - (edit) - (from Italy)
• 37.162.20.173 - (edit) - (from Italy)

All of these IP-accounts are from Italy, meaning that they are either (1) bots, (2) trolls from Italy / trolls using a VPN, or (3) some lonely person with multiple devices just spam editing on Wikipedia. Should a protection template be added, and if so, can an admin add one? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, page protection requested. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) § Wear Your Magazine quote

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Queen's Gambit (miniseries) § Wear Your Magazine quote. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion as well the discussion below it. — YoungForever^(talk) 15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

Quatermass and the Pit is the oldest unreviewed featured article—last reviewed in 2004. It still looks good to me, but I don't watch TV at all, much less British TV or science fiction. Please provide feedback at Talk:Quatermass and the Pit#WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've given it a quick MOS:TV(/MOS:PSEUDOHEAD) tune up, and referenced the ratings in the episodes table (though I'm just assuming the book source has the ratings for all of the episodes – I did not/cannot check that). In general, the article does seem to be in decent shape, though I suspect it could be referenced/sourced more. Also, in MOS:TV terms, I'm not sure where the 'Background' section should go – it's unclear to me if it belongs at the "top" where it is currently, or whether that should be folded into 'Production'. Similarly, I'm not quite sure where the 'Parodies' section should go. I'll let other WP:TV regulars take a look at it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

IF you don't mind, try to summarize any remaining problems at article talk, so anyone from any of the three projects I pinged will find everything centralized. Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

FTR, it looks to me like Making Waves (TV series) is a much bigger problem than any of the Quatermass WP:FAs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've given Making Waves (TV series) a MOS:TV tune-up as well. Still not sure it's worthy of being a WP:FA. But at least it's compliant with MOS:TV as of now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You know, looking that this list, and this one, there are remarkably few TV series articles WP:FAs (and a lot of the former ones have been delisted). (There are way more TV episode FAs in comparison.) I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just noting it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

List of ThunderCats (2011 TV series) episodes issue

I've got a problem here – I boldly merged this article back to ThunderCats (2011 TV series), as we don't do LoE article for single-season (just 26 episodes) TV series as per long-standing WP:TV practice (as per MOS:TVSPLIT), but the merge was reverted. Would others around her like to explain to Dream Focus how this is done?

And, yes – the episode summaries are actually too long – I was going to {{Long plot}} tag that section before I was reverted. (Note that the LoE article is 72 kB even with the too long episode summaries, and a summary table that violates WP:TVOVERVIEW.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• The list article is 72,507 bytes. The main article is 36,757 bytes. Did you read what you linked to? MOS:TVSPLIT redirects to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Article_splitting. It clearly covers what to do in this situation. That's why the list article was created years ago as a split from the main article. Dream Focus 18:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

We don't even begin to consider splitting until the second season, if one is announced and we have available data for some episodes. One-season series pretty much never get split. The only exception would be if the first season had about as many episodes as two seasons would, among some other factors, but even that's not definite. And that's not the case here, in any case. The first season has a standard 26 episodes. And 109,624 bytes is not that much. IJBall was correct to merge. Amaury • 18:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

So you are ignoring what the linked to guideline says? Dream Focus 18:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, more importantly, I read what WP:SIZESPLIT actually says – note that the table says Readable prose size. Not "article size", but "readable prose size". Probably about a third to a half of that LoE article is actually template table code, which does not count towards "readable prose size". IOW, your LoE is probably only about 40–45 kB of readable prose, and that's with episode summaries that are way too long. (IOW, it should be significantly less that 40 kB of prose with proper episode summmaries.) Meanwhile, the TV series article has a 'Soundtrack' section that should just be cut. Thus, the TV series article is probably really only 30 kB or less of "readable prose". So, no – the merged article is not too long.

Bottom line: Long-standing WP:TV practice does not allow for single-season LoE articles, esp. when the series in quesion is less than about 40 episodes (this one is just 26 episodes). And esp. when the current episode summaries are too long anyway. You've been wrong on this issue since 2013 – don't you think it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• If you want to merge it, then you tag both articles and start a proper merge discussion. There is no rule against having an article simple because it had less than 40 episodes. If you want to make one, follow procedures to add it to a notability guideline. Dream Focus 18:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've already quoted both MOS:TVSPLIT (which, BTW, also very clearly talks about "readable prose") and WP:SIZESPLIT at you – policy is on my side. And tagging these articles at this point is pure WP:BURO – we are having a discussion now. Hopefully, if more WP:TV regulars chime in here, you will see we already have a consensus (and a guideline) to do what I just did, and you'll drop your opposition to it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Both article's Talk pages have now been tagged to refer to this discussion. Merge tags are superfluous. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Merge discussions require both pages involved be tagged so people will know there is a discussion and where to have it. You can not merge articles without a proper merge discussion unless its uncontested. Dream Focus 18:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You must do it on the article pages, not the talk pages. Dream Focus 18:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
      • We are having a merge discussion right now – Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: the only thing that matters is that the discussion takes place. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I just fixed it so the top of the articles in question mention the merge discussion and link to it. Dream Focus 18:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Support merging back to the main article. One season with 26 episodes is definitely not enough to split. Based on MOS:TVSPLIT and Wikipedia:Article splitting (television), WP:SPLIT, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:LENGTH still apply. ThunderCats (2011 TV series) is not even close to be between 50kB to 60kB readable prose and 26 episodes are not even close to be between 50 and 60 episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur with IJBall's decision to merge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Also support the decision to merge. The opposing editor has not presented anything that would support such a split. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with a merge; I don't see why a show with one season needs to have its own episode list article when it can be easily placed—and it is probably more useful/helpful—in the main series article. I would like to note, however, that List of Awake episodes is currently a Featured List but has only one season and thirteen episodes. Heartfox (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few of those – I want to say that I've come across at least one or two others. Those are actually cases where we should probably post up 'merge' tags, and go through a month long process to merge that back to the main article, WP:FL or no. But just by virtue of being a WP:FL shouldn't "innoculate" something like articles like this from being merged back to the main article, as our guidelines currently indicate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Making "The Boys in the Bar" (near?) FA-quality

Hey guys. I plan to nominate "The Boys in the Bar" as Featured Article candidate. Honestly, I hope the article becomes my first Featured Article. First, I must improve the article to help it meet featured article criteria. I started the similar discussion earlier this year but haven't yet received replies at Talk:The Boys in the Bar. --George Ho (talk) 09:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnum, P.I. § Requested move 10 December 2020. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Criteria for including actor awards?

Hey there I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. It raises the question of whether MOS:BIO should include clear criteria about what sort of awards to include in actor biographies. Please comment if you are interested! Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As I just stated at WT:MOSTV, I think MOS:TV's section on awards under 'Reception' should explicitly cite WP:FILMCRITICLIST – I didn't realize this existed before now, otherwise I would have mentioned this back when we had the previous discussions on revising the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This discussion should be of interest to many regulars here, so if you have opinions one way or the other, please comment. WP:FILMCRITICLIST from MOS:FILM tells editors that awards should not be added to articles unless notability has been established for the award, i.e. there is an existing article about that award. It is not clear as to whether or not this includes articles about actors as well, which is why the discussion was opened at WikiProject Biography. This potentially could result in changes to MOS:TV. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The Vow (TV series)

I need some pairs of eyes on the article. A fairly newbie editor have been repeatedly moving The Vow (TV series) to The Vow NXIVM Documentary (TV series). The page move is unwarranted because reliable sources throughout the article are only referring as "The Vow", including official press releases directly from WarnerMedia's Press and the official title card. "NXIVM Documentary" isn't even part of the title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, article titles should be common names. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If it happens again, apply for move protection, or a block, or both. But, at this point, the editor must seek a WP:RM before another move attempt, and if they don't it's pure WP:DE. 21:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive3

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Masked Singer (American TV series)/archive3. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sesame Street original human characters

Was checking over the List of human characters in Sesame Street & related bio articles. What exactly is their status now. Are they retired from the show or not? GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You can find a lot of information about those characters at Muppet Wiki's Sesame Street Human Characters category. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

MouthShut.com

Recently saw the addition of MouthShut.com to the External Links of TV Articles along with IMDB links. Does this violate MOS:TVEXLINKS defcon5 (talk) 09:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think that such links should be removed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Style guidelines for Big Brother/Bigg Boss-style shows?

Hey all, are there any style guidelines for Big Brother/Bigg Boss-style reality shows? An editor brought Bigg Boss (Tamil season 4) to my attention and there are what I assume to be some serious WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues, mostly with smooshed fonts, and especially in the Bigg Boss (Tamil season 4)#Nominations table, which is very difficult to read. Is there an "ideal" for what these pages should look like? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:FONTSIZE, I can't see any justifiable reason why "small text" is being used in that article – all of that should be removed so it's "normal-sized" text font. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: Some of it has been changed back, but check out the Nominations table as of this edit, where the editor reduces the font size from 70% to 60%. That's almost impossible to read. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I should also note that WP:FONTSIZE does say "Additionally, large tables may require a decreased font size in order to fit on screen." To me, this level of reduction is ridiculous, but I'm also not sure if there is a better way for this content to be presented, or if the wider TV article community even thinks it's warranted. There are a lot of Bigg Boss fan-editors who operate in their own little silent world. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

But WP:FONTSIZE also says there is an absolute minimum: "Under no circumstances should the resulting font size of any text drop below 85% of the page's default font size (i.e. 11.9 px in Vector skin or 10.8 px in Monobook)." So under no circumstances is "60%" font size "OK". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

If only I'd kept reading! Thanks IJBall. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Ugggh I really don't know where to start. The TL:DR versions is none of the Bigg Boss articles follows WP:BIGBRO or general guidelines except in the article naming scheme. Long version: accessibity guidelines are never followed. In my past experience when I edit the articles to fix them I'm met with reverts to the point it is not worth my time. When myself and other editors in the past have attempted to fix the Nomination/Voting history tables (like the font and color issues) they get reverted. The Hindi articles have a habit of listing every guest that appears on the program to promote a product. The articles about each individual language edition has a "Housemate Pattern" which is unverifiable and original research. The list goes on and on and that is just off the top of my head. It was an awful nightmare transitioning these articles to using a table for the Housemates and even the guidelines are not followed there. Really the only problem that was addressed was correcting the naming convention used for Bigg Boss articles and that took... I want to say a few months of time. I've honestly thought about nominating all of the individual season articles for all 7 variants of Bigg Boss for deletion. (I'm usually against sending stuff to AFD unless it is a last resort.) Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 11:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hatnotes

Are hatnotes, particularly when a season has ended and it says "for the recent season, see..." proper? I don't know why that's necessary like... does that just stay there forever? I believe they perhaps have some helpfulness when a season is actually airing and readers may want a quick link to the season article if they happened to be on the series page, but are they really necessary after a season has ended?? What I'm seeing per WP:RELATED is that "They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic." Would the "specific aspect" here be the season article link? What's the/is there a consensus on the use of hatnotes? Heartfox (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I've used them in the past, I'll generally do "for the upcoming season" no longer than a month before the season starts airing, "for the current season" while it's airing, and "for the recently concluded" season for no longer than a month after the season concludes. I believe it's useful because often times readers are looking for information about the current season, not always the series as a whole so it's a navigational aid in my opinion. None of that is a hard and fast guideline, rule, or even consensus; there's nothing actually in the Wikiproject or MOS about it but that's just how I handle it. There was a pretty fleshed out discussion about it here if you care to read it, no consensus was reached so it's still been handled on a case-by-case situation at this point. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Title formatting

What is the ideal way to format the show title Hero – Gayab Mode On?

• Hero – Gayab Mode On
• Hero– Gayab Mode On as per SAB TV? (Note: website has plays music automatically)
• Hero: Gayab Mode On

Something else? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The way it is now, as per MOS:DASH. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Depends how it is displayed on its official website. I would say go with the one that is how it is displayed on its official website. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Their are two official website of sony. Have a look here Sony Sab tv Hero- Gayab Mode On, Sony Liv online Hero: Gayab Mode On. Thanks --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The former is unacceptable formatting under the MOS, so it either has to be Hero – Gayab Mode On or Hero: Gayab Mode On. There really is no other option here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with IJBall. We are not beholden to copying how a title officially is, but instead follow usage in third-party reliable sources as well as making titles adhere to our own style guidelines. While the third option might also be acceptable, the second wouldn't, as it's neither a spaced en dash nor an unspaced em dash. Opencooper (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Runtime

When writing the runtime of a TV show in an article, do we write the time based on a single segment or two segments which most episodes have? Wubzy (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Need some "notability" help with a bunch of new Canadian-TV-related drafts

184.160.70.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started 10 drafts in the last week. I can't tell if these are notable or not.

It would be helpful if someone familiar with Canadian TV would put a note on each talk page saying if the person is clearly notable, maybe, or clearly not notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Episode notability

I have a question - I recently created an article for the episode Pure, which was the season finale of Into the Dark. I was planning on returning to it and fleshing it out more, but at that point in time the article was just sections on plot, cast, and a reception section. The episode had reviews from multiple reliable sources, many of which are fairly notable media outlets. For example, there were reviews from RogerEbert.com, Vulture, /Film, io9, The Verge, and The Daily Dot and there was other light coverage from outlets like Bloody Disgusting, TheWrap, and JoBlo.com. Alex_21 moved this to the draftspace and returned the article to a redirect, arguing that the reviews would not be enough to establish notability and that the current state wouldn't be enough, as this was the policy of the notability guidelines for television episodes.

I don't see where this is mentioned, but I did want to ask here to be certain. If I am wrong then I will make sure that I have more sections and content before moving work live. If it does, then this does feel a bit contrary to WP:GNG, as this would otherwise pass notability guidelines and would certainly pass WP:NFILM, which I do think should be considered for feature length film anthology series like this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It may be useful to look over this discussion which touches on your issue and Wikipedia:Notability (television) which is currently in the drafting stage. The discussion I linked to has a pretty in-depth discussion about what makes an episode notable, etc. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See the #Articles for every episode section above. This is a point of contention. I think a lot of feel that standalone-episode articles should have sourcing covering both reviews and production (at least) to be considered notable. If you disagree, one option would be to move it back to mainspace, and then immediately take it to WP:AfD to see if other editors think that "reviews-only" gets the article across the GNG-threshold... Of course, if you can find some sourcing for a 'Production' section as well, I would bet that nobody would object to moving it back to mainspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for linking to the discussion - I'll participate. FWIW, I don't think that reviews are commonplace enough to be considered trivial coverage, but that's a discussion for the other section, not here so I don't split the discussion areas. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  What a silly thing to say. That article on "Pure" has reviews by iO9 and The Daily Dot, and the Rotten Tomatoes link shows that there are also reviews from The Verge and LA Weekly. It absolutely passes GNG. IJBall's contention is not a shared consensus, and should not be considered definitive. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Several reviews, an article does not make. Could I create an article with just those two (or four) reviews? No. Now, a production section? That's certainly worthy of a separate episode article, as the production concerns just that separate episode. WikiProject rules and GNG are both guidelines, so do not present GNG as some be-all policy; in fact, a WikiProject would be more relevant than GNG, as it concerns what should be in a television-related article over a basic article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with you that a good quality article should have a production section. But yes, you could create a basic article with just those four reviews, and ReaderofthePack has done that. Your interpretation that WikiProject rules override the GNG is incorrect. The weight of guidelines goes like this: #1) GNG (General Notability Guideline), #2) SNG (Subject-specific Notability Guideline). WikiProject rules are a distant third. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  No, they also created an article with a Plot section. So, no, you could not create an article with just a few sentences and those four reviews. I challenge you to create an article with just reviews. Disagree concerning the rules of GNG; sure, GNG is a basic guideline on how to create some article, but subject-specific guidelines detail what makes those articles notable for in the area of those specific subjects. However, they all do remain guidelines and nothing more. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  You can disagree if you want to, but that is not the case. GNG is the controlling authority. If WP:N is just "guidelines and nothing more", then that would mean there are no consensus-based rules for notability, and you have no grounds to discourage ReaderofthePack and their perfectly adequate article. —  Toughpigs (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the current state of Pure (Into the Dark) shows that the threshold for notability of TV episodes that Alex21, IJBall and others are talking about should be enforced. It gave ReaderofthePack the impulse to vastly improve it, to the point that's good enough to be in the mainspace. El Millo (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, people tend to not pay attention to what WP:GNG actually says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." (emphasis mine) The crux of the question is what actually defines "significant coverage". That's where the disagreement comes in. If you create a TV episode article, and your only sourcing is reviews from iO9 and The Daily Dot, and a Rotten Tomatoes summary page, then, no – I am going to say that the "significant coverage" benchmark is clearly not met by that, and I'm going to vote "delete" at AfD, or state that the article should be taken to Draft. Now, if you have an article on a TV episode, and its only sourcing is 4 reviews, and they're from, say, LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, TVLine and Bloody Disgusting, then that is a lot closer to clearing WP:GNG outright. And if the reviews include Variety- or The Hollywood Reporter-level reviews, then, yes – it almost certainly clears WP:GNG on that alone (even probably without a 'Production' section, though if it's getting reviewed in Variety, then production info is almost certainly out there too). So, no – I don't accept Toughpigs's original contention – if the article had just those review sources, and no 'Production' section, it shouldn't be an article in mainspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: so you agree that the article in its current state does meet GNG? El Millo (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, it now has a 'Production' section, and includes sourcing from places like Deadline Hollywood, The Wrap, Vulture, and RogerEbert.com – so, yeah, that's probably enough to allow it to easily survive at WP:AfD. Now, I'd still like to see more sourcing even than this to consider it a "solid" article – but this is a show on The CW, and it's actually one of their lower-rung shows, so I don't hold out much hope that we're going to find much better than Deadline Hollywood for sourcing here... But maybe I'm wrong... Of course, though, this is a separate question about what kind of TV episode articles do we actually want out there – my view is that we should really only cover TV episodes that are actually "culturally significant" in standalone articles. That's obviously a much higher benchmark that WP:GNG – but, in a perfect world, I think we'd only write up episode-specific articles for truly culturally notable TV episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(IJBall, just a correction, this is for Into the Dark on Hulu, not In the Dark on The CW.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know that existed. (Maybe not surprising – I've only sub'ed to Hulu twice, and they were for relatively short periods of time.) Now I understand a little better – there's a natural inclination to try to create episode articles for anthology series, but I'd argue that's where the lure to do so should be resisted the most: sure, anthology series (e.g. The Twilight Zone,The Outer Limits, probably Black Mirror) do occasionally put out truly notable individual episodes – but most episodes of anthology series never reach that level of true notability. If there's an example of a TV series where only a smattering of the episodes will get standalone articles, with the rest not having articles, it's an anthology series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(By Dark Mirror do you mean Black Mirror? If so, this is my area of expertise. You'll find a sledgehammer of significant coverage at any of the GAs/FAs—see User:Bilorv/Black Mirror. All the episodes are notable ten times over.) — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is my view that "Pure" is notable, as demonstrated by Readerofthepack's sources. — Bilorv (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, your idea that "we should really only cover TV episodes that are actually 'culturally significant'" is clearly out-of-step with any existing consensus. The standards for WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILM are that books and films need at least two national reviews for bare notability. I don't see why a television episode has to hit a much higher standard to get an article. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Book or album = TV series. Chapter or song = TV episode. See the difference? Nearly every notable TV series, book or album gets a Wikipedia article. But plenty of songs on albums don't get articles, and book chapters virtually never do – that's how TV episodes should be treated. BTW, you are confusing what "can" qualify for an article, while I was talking about what "should" qualify for an article – those aren't the same things at all. Our standards should be higher than "Barely clears WP:GNG = let's create an article!!" And, no – at least in WP:TV, I don't think I am out of step in terms of what I said – I suspect a lot of WP:TV regulars feel there are too many episode articles, and the standards for creating those should be higher than what they are. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A TV episode is not equivalent to a book chapter. Literally nobody reviews or discusses individual book chapters, while people review and discuss individual television episodes all the time. —  Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No, but the equivalent to a song in an album does seem accurate. El Millo (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I would concur with the song on an album analogy. Singles released probably deserve their own articles, but that still might not be the case for all singles, whereas the other songs on the album probably shouldn't have articles, even if reviews speak directly to them. That's essentially what is being said for television episodes. The truly standout ones (the singles), that have info discussing how that particular one was made, written, filmed, etc. can make a truly notable article, whereas the other episodes most likely shouldn't have individual articles if that sourcing and content doesn't exist. This is much more relevant in the older broadcast model of 22 episodes in a season, or series that drop all episodes at once versus "event" series with shorter seasons (6-10 episodes) that most likely will have the coverage needed for each episode to have articles about them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

On "streaming television"

Per this diff, I recall that there was an earlier discussion and found this discussion related to "web television" and getting rid of that. On getting rid of web television, that absolutely makes sense, but the fact this is leaving behind "streaming television" I think is just as bad. A television series is a television series regardless if is streams or broadcasts. We don't identify books as "ebooks" if they are only released electronically; its still a book in all forms. A TV series is the same way. That it was on a streaming service first should be obvious from identifying the first broadcast home but after that, it could go to a home video release or release in other formats at which point calling it a "streaming television" series becomes nonsense. This also just adds too much genre/type kudzo to these programs. Like films, TV shows should be identified by at most two primary genres, and if there are other genres that play into it, that can be described later.

I think the concern from the past discussion is that you do want to distinguish web media-based shows that do not broadcast or go to a subscription-based service (something like Hot Ones) which is a web series, compared to shows that, yes, you may be able to get via the web, but are meant to be treated as television programs from both production and broadcast approaches (eg Netflix/Hulu/Amazon original programming). The fact that there's no distinguishing these anymore at the Emmys should be a sign that we should not be treating these differently from other broadcast series. --Masem (t) 05:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FTR, this is why I suggested "The Society is an American mystery teen drama television series created by Christopher Keyser, that was released via streaming on Netflix on May 10, 2019." formulation for ledes of these kinds of shows – it avoids the whole "streaming television" issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That would make sense since you would usually say something like "The Amazing Race is an American competitive reality television series that first premiered on September 4, 2001 on CBS." or something akin to that for regular television. --Masem (t) 05:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but how do we accurately differentiate between shows like Hot Ones and the TV shows on Netflix, and thus correctly label those that are web series and those that are simply TV series on streaming services? El Millo (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be very obvious that shows that are made for Netflix et al that these are television series. I can't see what confusion there is here. --Masem (t) 05:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Then... made for Netflix, Amazon, HBOMax, Disney+ are TV series and say, made for YouTube are web series? We should have a clear distinction to avoid having many discussions on particular shows in the future. El Millo (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

We have – web series are generally older (say, mostly the 2005–2015 period), tend to run shorter (e.g. 5–15 minute episodes), and tend to be put out by places like web sites, or "free" services like YouTube, not from "streamers" like Netflix, Prime and Hulu. In general, what the "streamers" put out are 30- and 60-minute episode TV series that would not generally be called "web series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Great then. I agree there's no need to call them "streaming television" and just plain "television" is fine. El Millo (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably should include Quibi (despite it being dead) among the "streamers" despite the 10 minute length of episode. --Masem (t) 15:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know what to call Quibi shows (i.e. web series vs. TV series), and am just glad that it didn't last long enough to become much of a problem!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

So besides the fact that there may be instances where it is unclear if something is a web series (which will probably need to be determined at those article's talk pages), is there agreement here that we don't want to be encouraging the use of "streaming television series"? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My personal take is that it doesn't bother me either way. While I personally prefer this kind of wording – "The Society is an American mystery teen drama television series created by Christopher Keyser, that was released via streaming on Netflix on May 10, 2019." – I'm not going to say "streaming television" is "wrong" in the way that "web television" clearly was (as a WP:OR WP:NEOLOGISM only used on Wikipedia). IOW, I don't think as a WP we really need to be "prescriptive" about this – editors at the various articles can figure out what they want. I don't think this WP should say either way is "right" or "wrong" or "preferred". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the consensus of the last discussion on this gave some editors the impression that "streaming television" was preferred and should be used everywhere, so I just wanted to see if that was what everyone was thinking here. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Since I was involved in the last discussion, putting my two cents here... I still prefer IJBall's wording (showX was released via streaming on Netflix) over the use of "streaming television" but don't despise it like I did "web television". I think if using You Tube as an example, there were actual television series released on You Tube Premium such as Cobra Kai so that's not quite as bright a line.. and Quibi was just weird. Spanneraol (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I really can't stand the artificial distinction between "streaming television series" vs. plain "television series", so I would vastly prefer "[Blah] is a television series first released on Netflix/Prime Video/[insert streaming platform here]". If we think how people 20 or 30 years from now might look back on this era, even "released via streaming" is a bit overboard (though highly preferable to "streaming television series")... people will want to know what kind of show it was more so than they will want to know how it was consumed, and how it was consumed will be evident from "first aired on" vs. "first released on" in addition to the network/provider. Just my 2¢. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI thread

There is an ANI report you may be interested in: Disruptive user seemingly not understanding. A lot of their edits need to be reformatted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

GSN template

{{Game Show Network}} has been revamped to be in chronological order, like most other channel/network navboxes such as the slightly larger {{Adult Swim original programming}}. I feel like all the navboxes of this type should be formatted like this, when not subdivided like {{Nickelodeon original series}}/{{Former Nickelodeon original series}}/{{Nickelodeon Network Game Shows}}/{{Nickelodeon Original Movies}}. Should the years also be made small, like in {{BET}}?

Game Show Network (2018–present)

I may experiment with colors as well, to match the channel colors (e.g. white on light blue and reddish-orange for GSN, as seen in the current logo). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Small text should definitely not be used per MOS:SMALLFONT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I also think 4-digit years should be used – the template has several instances of "1999–2000" (etc.), which means they should all be 4-digit date ranges for consistency. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The First TV

Hey everyone, I work for The First TV (Bill O'Reilly's new network). I've created a draft for The First, which can be found at Draft:The First TV. I don't want to move the draft to mainspace on my own, because I have a conflict of interest and want to respect the process and the community. Would someone consider taking a look at the draft? If you think it merits inclusion, I think it would benefit being moved to mainspace. Thanks! D00dadays (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@D00dadays: thank you for abiding by our paid editor disclosures. You can resubmit the draft by the Articles for Creation process—or do you need instruction on how to do this? It will then be reassessed in much the same way as it was originally asssessed.

I've made a couple of edits to properly represent all of the sources in the draft, including the negative aspects. Neutrality on Wikipedia is about what topics we omit as well as the way we write about topics that are included. You must understand that you can't have it both ways in aiming to use sources with headlines ViacomCBS employees pressure Pluto TV to stop streaming new Bill O'Reilly show and ViacomCBS Put 'I Can't Breathe' on Its Networks, Still Gives New Bill O'Reilly Show a Platform as evidence of notability and also exclude the majority of those sources' information.

Be warned that nobody owns an article, least of all the people the article is about, so that if this topic is found to be notable then you will not be able to prevent edits that conform to our guidelines but not to your employer's interests. — Bilorv (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Episode formatting

After starting a cleanup of the episode list on Weinerville, I think a tracking category is needed for episode lists that do not use {{Episode table}} formatting. It would have its own small ambox. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Alex has a list: User:Alex 21/sandbox/Episodes. I'm not sure if it's manually maintained, or updated by bot (hopefully the later), or how often it's updated... On my end, I convert to {{Episode table}} formatting every time I find an old TV series article that doesn't use the template, but I don't update Alex's list manually on my end. I've converted dozens over the last several months. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's manually updated, but if editors are wanting to clear it out more regularly (as it currently stands at 7,400+ articles), I'll happily update it more regularly as well. Unfortunately, it's not a list that can be turned into a category, as while we can use {{Episode table}} to check for {{Episode list}} usages (based on the episodes parameter), we cannot do it vice versa. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there also a way to track which articles have 'Series overview' tables which are not using the {{Series overview}} template? This would also be useful information to have. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Premise and plot?

Can anyone think of any examples of quality articles that have a short premise summary like what I see at Northern Rescue, but that also have expanded season summaries like what I'd find at Veronica Mars? I am having trouble finding an article that has both. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

You generally don't do both – it's more of an "either/or" situation. In general, newer TV series, or TV series that aren't very complex, will have 'Premise' sections which offer a brief overview of the overall series concept. 'Plot' sections (especially ones with season-by-season details) are usually reserved for series with more complete storylines – Veronica Mars would be a good example of that kind of show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Premise is more for documentary, or reality or game style shows where a plot summary would be inappropriate. If you can go into season detail on a narrative show, you can go into plot detail in a full plot summary. But whether premise/plot summary/season summary or a combination of the three is appropriate comes down to the individual format. Heroes has been back on TV again and it might be a good candidate for short premise and detailed season sections, because of how its arcs were broken up season-wise and the whole show has a unifying motive, but I can't think of another example. Kingsif (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Not just those – in general, I would say most sitcoms would only merit a 'Premise' section. Sitcoms generally aren't "deep" enough to merit actual detailed 'Plot' sections. Some other kinds of scripted series may not merit 'Plot' sections either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sitcoms and some soaps, too. Long running + not deep. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Series overview template needs a slight redesign

I'm not one that normally cares about the aesthetics of Wikipedia's templates so long as it is functional and coherent. However, the series overview template has always appeared very unprofessional to me, or at the very least, has some oversights. The issue I see is that it dedicates an entire cell just to be an empty and solid color. If the goal is just to be more aesthetically recognizable for each season, I think there is a better way to convey that than to just create an empty cell. Below, there is an example of making the template more aesthetically pleasing.

Original Season Episodes Originally released 1 8 July 15, 2016 (2016-07-15) 2 9 October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27) 3 8 July 4, 2019 (2019-07-04) 4 8 TBA

Proposed redesign Season Episodes Originally Released 1 8 July 15, 2016 (2016-07-15) 2 9 October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27) 3 8 July 4, 2019 (2019-07-04) 4 8 TBA

What do you think? Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 19:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

FTR, I prefer the current format (I think it looks better), though I strongly dislike the "shaded" "TBA" cell (in general, I dislike gray-shading in tables, and think its use should be generally avoided, and the {{N/A}} template should be used sparingly, if at all), and prefer the use of {{TableTBA}} for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against an update to this template if we can come up with a better option, but looking at these two options above, I prefer the current format. The larger block of colour is easier to see in my opinion, and the whole point is to see the colours to help differentiate each season. I also think it makes sense to have the colour under the season header since the colour is associated with the season itself (as seen in {{Episode table}} and {{Infobox television season}}).

If we just want to avoid having a separate cell for the colour, how about something like this?

adamstom97 proposal Season Episodes Originally Released 1 8 July 15, 2016 (2016-07-15) 2 9 October 27, 2017 (2017-10-27) 3 8 July 4, 2019 (2019-07-04) 4 8 TBA

I think this proposal aligns more with the other templates mentioned than Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal does. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

This one would put a limit on the color we can use, since many would make it difficult to read the number. Plus, it would be even harder to see in some cases if there's a link to a section or an article, having the number be blue or purple if the link was already clicked. Perhaps the colors are just unnecessary, and could be outright removed. El Millo (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The colour limitations would be the same as the other templates I mentioned, and the colours in this template should already match those anyway. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The OP's proposed table with thin bands makes the colouration hard to discern, and I too have a concern about the contrast ratio if we superimpose numbers onto a coloured BG. If there was a way to automatically ensure accessibility requirements are met, then that might be fine, otherwise, the original table looks fine to me. I tend not to see the need with the shaded cells or "TBA" at all, since it's assumed that something will eventually propagate that cell. I lean toward an em dash — or nothing at all, but I don't know that that's the main topic of discussion here. Psst! "Originally released" not "Originally Released" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally, putting "TBA" (or "N/A") in those cells make sense to me. I just agree with you that those cells do not need to be/should not be "shaded", and I'd prefer the "smaller font" variation that {{TableTBA}} yields. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

My current proposal is one of many ideas we can implement to improve the template. The purpose is to have a more professional aesthetic and less chaotic. Although I do believe the color should be used less, i don't think that's going to be a consensus for it. I personally think adamstom97 proposal is good compromise.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 21:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps just making the colored cell a bit smaller (but not as small as Blue Pumpkin Pie's proposal) would make it look more "professional". El Millo (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Can't we just remove the colors? Do they really serve a purpose? El Millo (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they do – each TV season episode table is "color-coded" (in its table header), so the 'Overview' table should repeat that for consistency. For that purpose, I think the current table achieves this purpose the best. The "color bars" could be a little narrower, I guess, but I would not make them too much narrower. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: the size of the cell isn't what makes it unprofessional, is having a separate cell dedicated to color only. Color isn't unhelpful, if you look at List of Rick and Morty episodes it does help organize data. It just needs to have more restrictions and less dependent on them.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 21:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, the notion of a coloured box preceding text of some kind is generations-old. Map legends and charts/graphs have been structured this way in professional environments forever. Although now that I look at the tables, I've never said, "the information I seek is in the salmon and brown-coloured tables", so maybe there is an argument that colour isn't relevant at all, which I think someone pitched above. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I'm not suggesting that a colored box next to the text is unprofessional across all types of charts and that's not necessarily what's happening in the current table either. We can't compare charts or maps (information being conveyed through visuals graphics) to tables (data that usually doesn't require any additional visuals and it speaks for itself). With the current table, it uses creates a completely separate cell as its own independent piece of data, when it's not, it just there for aesthetic purposes. (it doesn't help that the template's documentation gives examples of Bad Contrast). That's why my original proposal was just to use the borders as visual indicators, not creating more cells.

I'm actually not opposed to removing the color indicators altogether, but I'm afraid of the backlash of WP:ILIKEIT, and I don't think that adding color to tables is a bad thing if done properly. So if there's something that makes most people happy, and makes it more professional, I'd be ok with that. This is why I'm trying my best to explain why it looks unprofessional and I hope it doesn't get oversimplified to "color box next to words is bad".Blue Pumpkin Pie ^{Chat Contribs} 19:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't personally feel there's any need for a redesign, and would be against Adam's given it would be difficult to see what is and isn't links. However, if any is being considered, I understand what Blue Pumpkin Pie was going for in their proposal, but to keep things in the same order as now, I would suggest we just reduce the color column size from what it currently is, rather than move it after the season number and as a line width coloring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

David Salzman

Could anyone offer an addition set of eyes on this article? I have concerns regarding material not being supported by the citations provided, but my efforts to tag or resolve these issues have been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

LGBTQ sections

The user Historyday01 has been going around to various articles on animated TV series and adding large sections about LGBTQ representation and/or views. (typical example) I can see that for some shows that's a big part of the discourse about the show, but for others, it just isn't. If such matters are tangential to the show's general reception, perhaps being only mentioned in niche or low-quality sources, they should not be given WP:Undue weight. The same applies to any minority group, of course. I think for some of these shows it needs to be reverted, and people more familiar with them can take a look for themselves.

A lot of this material appears to be largely copied from specialized articles they have basically written, like LGBTQ representation in adult animation. If an article like that has a paragraph or two about a show, that makes sense, but lifting that amount of material into the article on the show itself is not appropriate. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I added those sections because I wanted to improve those articles. My actions are completely justified. Besides, if someone wants to get rid of the sections, that's their prerogative. Usually I've only been adding in a paragraph at most, then linking back to the page. There are a number of shows on the LGBTQ representation in adult animation page which I did not add sections to articles, as the content was pretty minimal, like Brickleberry or any of those under "Other networks." I would not say that any of the additions I made give "minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects" as is stated on WP:UNDUE. Not in the slightest. The sections I had added for Futurama, Drawn Together, The Venture Bros., Archer, and The Simpsons have already been removed to address your request. The only one that remains is on the "South Park" page, which is is only four sentences long (and one paragraph), which is minuscule compared to the section above it, which is four paragraphs long. So, @Crossroads, your argument is now moot. So, just drop it. Historyday01 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you reconsidering and removing sections where it doesn't really fit. I don't appreciate that in doing so you said it was because of an "annoying editor", but you didn't name me and did in fact go back to the status quo, so I'll let it go for now. The fact is I only reverted at Futurama and brought the matter here for wider input. But it seems you already kind of know which shows it was undue on. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't as much a "reconsideration" but whatever. There's no need to have this discussion at this point, as your complaint has been addressed. Every other page I have added sections to, like Hazbin Hotel, Helluva Boss, Magical Girl Friendship Squad, Harley Quinn, Adventure Time: Distant Lands, RWBY, Adventure Time, Steven Universe, and Steven Universe Future all have prominent LGBTQ characters, almost all in the main cast, which is why they have sections. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Historyday01:, your attitude in this isn't appropriate: starting your first comment "here we go again" and referring to someone trying to have discussion as an "annoying editor". Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on that note. As for the article sections; I'm more concerned with the new articles created, which are less about representation and more just a simple prose-version of the "List of LGBT characters in" whatever media list articles. The content is just "X show has these queer characters", and sometimes unsourced. Burn it all, I say. I say this coming from WikiProject LGBT Studies, too. The information just already exists in a better form on Wikipedia. And even when the show has lots of prominent queer characters, you have to look at the article and see if, in the whole article, a random paragraph listing queer characters is appropriate for the length, level of detail, structure, etc. Because it's not going to be one of the first things added (basic information first), and depending on how much it's relevant to the show's notability in other media, does not deserve such a large %age of the article's text. Given the current content is less than a character list, have you considered making a character list instead? @Crossroads: I agree we need more discussion on these new articles and additions to other articles. Kingsif (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif, as for the first sentence, I have dealt with many annoying people on here since I started editing similar pages, so I saw the OP as falling into the same category. I'm not going to apologize for what I said in that regard. As for the rest of your comment, the new articles were created because the old articles were not workable. I reorganized the content in the way that made sense. The content was already in those old articles for about half a year and no one objected, so it made sense to put them in a better format. And yes, I already have character lists, and the history pages are an extension of those lists. There can be list pages AND history pages. I disagree with you and Crossroads that there needs to be more discussion about the articles, which are valid under existing Wikipedia rules and procedures. If you are that concerned about the new articles, why don't you edit them and make changes on them rather than just complaining about it? Because if you aren't, then your words are basically worthless. I can't maintain those articles on my own, as I had been doing in the past. Historyday01 (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif and @Crossroads, can we please end this discussion? I don't want to say anything I regret, after pulling back my past comments from yesterday and today which I shouldn't have said, and I see this as not worth any of our time. This is just getting way too toxic for my taste, and I think we should adjourn this discussion permanently and move on. Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

We can continue it without you? You don't have to stick around and talk, but, no, nobody is going to close a discussion and drop genuine concerns because an article creator doesn't like it. Kingsif (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. I just think this discussion isn't productive anymore. That's all. But since it won't be closed, I guess I have no choice but to participate, since I was mentioned in the first place. If you have suggestions for recombining the pages or whatnot, then propose them here and we can work together to consider each option on its merits. I guess I have no choice but to choose that option. Historyday01 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Just want to drop a li’l note here to say that your comment about “burn[ing] it all” comes across as incredibly tone-deaf, considering that LGBTQ+ topics have systemically been under-represented on Wikipedia. I also want to publicly note that I believe Historyday01’s contributions are excellent and sorely needed. Wikipedia has mega problems with systemic bias, and Historyday01’s work collectively represents a step in the right direction. I don't understand all the drama here, tbh.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon: as an active member of the LGBT project, I know the issues. Sorry if you don't like my humorous expressions, but "burn it all" sounds friendlier than "let's delete every contribution this user has made in the last 2 months", no? Most of which are duplicate articles or UNDUE prose lists. The drama was their very uncivil attitude that seems to have been tempered, but they still like to delete every comment they don't like, so I don't know where it's all going. The work may be a step towards getting more mention of LGBT characters on Wikipedia, but that isn't Wikipedia's purpose if the coverage isn't appropriate. I'll kindly ask you to not join a discussion just to say you don't like me, especially when it's for no reason at all, and when you don't seem to have understood the discussion in the first place. Kingsif (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Gen. Quon came here to say that to me after Historyday01 decided to start shit-talking me and Crossroads to him. This isn't a playground where you can gossip with your friends then run over to be mean to the kids they don't like. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider it gossip, but just talking to one of my friends on here. Anyway, if you are taking seriously the idea of deleting "every contribution" that I have made "in the last 2 months," then that would be awful. Without a doubt, there is duplication, but I see no problem with that. And I revised the pages today to make them a little more succinct, moving content BACK to the History pages. I'm willing to say that some of the pages are text-heavy, but I would say that should be addressed on a page-by-page basis. In terms of deleting "every comment" I don't like, I have done that in the past, but I can say I will not do that in the future. I can't go back and reverse my previous actions, but I can get better. I am glad to see you say that the "work may be a step towards getting more mention of LGBT characters on Wikipedia." I would agree that the information should only be added if the coverage is appropriate and I would say the current sections (not including the ones I removed to address the concerns of Crossroads) I have added to articles are appropriate. With that, I have to agree with Gen. Quon that "LGBTQ+ topics have systemically been under-represented on Wikipedia" and the fact that my "contributions are excellent and sorely needed." I further agree with their assessment that "Wikipedia has mega problems with systemic bias" and their contention that my work, "collectively represents a step in the right direction." Similarly, I don't understand all the drama here either. It seems highly unnecessary, to be honest. Kingsif, if you have suggestions for each of the pages, please make them on the specific pages. I would be glad to hear your suggestions and am open to them. Otherwise, your comments are broad and prone to problems. Historyday01 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Holy bananas. I don't even know where to start. I reached out to Historyday01 to let them know they were doing some good work, and then they expressed some frustrations they were having. They then pointed me here. I read the discussion, agreeing with Historyday01 that your comment was not very friendly nor was it constructive (and for the record, "let's delete every contribution this user has made in the last 2 months" isn't much better). I therefore noted my thoughts on this matter. It doesn't matter if you're "an active member of the LGBT project"—your comment was mean-spirited and completely inappropriate given Wikipedia's commitment to civility, not to mention its admonition to not bite newcomers. It invalidated hard work, and very well could drive away a new editor whose future on here looks bright. This isn't gossip. This isn't "shit-talk". It's me—a seasoned Wikipedia editor who is hoping to counter systemic bias and cyber-gatekeeping—expressing my observations.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Gen Quon has it right. Kingsif, you keep throwing the commitment to civility at me, but have you been that civil yourself? Again, I repeat, despite your conduct, I remain open to your suggestions. If you would like to propose any suggestions to what I have proposed, I am all ears. I am constantly making changes to the pages all the time, going through them with a fine tooth comb. In fact, if you look at the history of the LGBTQ representation in animated web series page today, you will see that I moved content BACK to History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2020s page, doing the same on the Netflix and LGBTQ representation in animation page as well, trying to only keep content on there which specifically related to the shows (in this case She-Ra and the Princesses of Power and Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts), while general content went to the 2020s page I just mentioned and the History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2010s page. Similarly, I reduced the number of sections on the LGBTQ representation in adult animation page, slimming it down a bit, moving a good deal of content to the History of LGBTQ characters in animation: 2000s and History of LGBTQ characters in animated series: 1990s pages. Also, with the Cartoon Network and LGBTQ representation page, I revised the format again, moving some content to the 2000s and 2010s page I mentioned earlier. Of course, I have, on the talk pages of each of those pages I created, attribution to other pages, making clear when content has been moved or split off. I'm not a genius, even though I have a graduate school education (I graduated over a year ago with a MLIS degree which I am still very proud of) and I'm always learning more. I do not know everything, and Kingsif, you don't either. Each of us has pages we edit and update on specific subjects...and that's ok! That's the joy of Wikipedia! I once complained to a friend, back in grad school about how Wikipedia was awful and that it did no one any good, as part of a school project in Spring 2019. Since then, I've grown to appreciate Wikipedia as a living, breathing organism of sorts. Of course, there are still unsourced content, toxicity, gender imbalance in the number of editors, corporations and governments coming into Wikipedia to influence public perceptions, and other problems. Even so, I see believe I can do positive things for this community and I stand by that, no matter what gets in my way. Like many fellow humans, I do not wish for confrontation or conflict. Rather I just want to edit Wikipedia without any drama, which you are causing. In sum, No one on here knows everything, even if they think they do. But, I can't do this alone, which is why I posted about it on the LGBT studies page to begin with. While I somewhat regret that and the actions that led to this, and as much as I would like to keep pages on the "down low," as I call it, that's not really productive for improving Wikipedia, so I have been trying to reach out more. I admit I've made mistakes in the past, but creating these pages was NOT a mistake and I will not apologize for my stewardship of the pages. I do not own the pages, but I would like and position myself so I am a big part of them. I do hope this discussion leads to a productive result, ultimately. However, I am seriously doubting that, sad to say. I am truly sorry for everyone on this project which has to witness this discussion. I wish it could have been better and perhaps I could have worded things differently. But, we are where we are now, so we just have to bury the hatchet, make up, and move forward. It is the only way.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the trash-talking other editors you did was definitely improper. But, sure, we'll bury the hatchet on that; just don't resume that behavior. I am all for reducing systemic bias against LGBTQ topics (and other topics about other minorities), but that is still done in accord with WP:Due weight. As I said, I do appreciate that you recognized which shows are hardly about LGBTQ and removed the undue weight. When it comes to articles that are focused on LGBTQ topics, please also be sure to avoid poorly sourced speculations or non-canon publicity-mongering about characters that are not clearly LGBTQ (as I removed here [1][2]). Crossroads ^-talk- 22:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok then. I'm not going to address your first sentences, as I don't want to get into any more drama on that subject, but I will agree with you that "reducing systemic bias against LGBTQ topics (and other topics about other minorities)" is justified, especially with specific pages on the topic, which I'm creating all the time. In terms of those shows, its not as much as "undue weight," a term which is used by some users on here, against LGBTQ articles and pages, or sections about LGBTQ character or themes, but rather that it made more sense for those pages specifically. Whether certain sections are undue weight applies on a case-by-case basis, page by page. In terms of that "non-canon publicity-mongering," in regard to Lisa Simpson, I would say your removal made sense. I'm fine with it because The Simpsons (I mean, Smithers was in the closet for over 20 years as a gay character, not coming out until 2016!) has not been very good with LGBTQ representation anyway and there are many other canon characters on that page. But, sure I'll try to "avoid poorly sourced speculations" too, although I doubt there are many, or any, of those, considering I try to use the best sources I can, with some exceptions to that, of course.Historyday01 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Outstanding Comedy Series?

Hey all, I'm looking at Dan Levy (Canadian actor). Do individuals usually have "Outstanding Comedy Series" in their award listings? I mean, obviously he was a contributor, but it seems like the award belongs to the show, not the individual. Similarly, do show articles get to brag about Best Actor awards? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

To the first question: yes. The Best Series award, like Best Picture at the Oscars, is awarded to the producers. Dan and Eugene Levy were both producers, and both have this award listed. The show could also list acting awards, and many do, but sometimes it can get excessive and they're moved off/chopped. Kingsif (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Best Actor awards should always be mentioned at show articles (and if that causes a split then sobeit). Agreed with the first question: if someone won a Best Series award as producer then that's a good reason to mention it on their article. — Bilorv (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the camp that disagrees and does not think TV show articles should include awards for individual actors in the Awards table. I'm fine with that being mentioned in prose – but awards for actors are more for the actors than for the works they are in. Writing and directing, etc. awards? Yes. But not actor awards, which are more for the actors themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills

There seems to be a disagreement on noted guest appearance on this page history. According to IMDB, before they were main cast members, Lisa Rinna had a credited guest appearance on season 4 episode 10, and Denise Richards had a credited guest appearance on season 5 episode 11. A user keeps deleting this source and removing the appearance from the cast timeline. They say this is not IMDB and these should not be included. If they were credited, then we should note that. Any advise on where to go from here? Thanks! Ev Thom (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt episodes

An editor decided to make episode articles for every episode of season 1 so far. I skimmed through each of the episode articles and none of them even pass WP:GNG, maybe just the first episode. Everything is already covered on the Episode table. The production section of each of the individual episode article only consist who wrote and directed the episode. Reception only include WP:UGC, specifically IMDb which isn't even appropriate to use. I see nothing new on the individual episode articles. Can editors who are familiar with individual episode articles weigh in on this? — YoungForever^(talk) 01:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@YoungForever: Never seen the show but I do deal with episode articles from time to time. I glanced at a few episode articles at random and casting sources (just a list of guest stars in all the ones I viewed) are from IMDb, which isn't reliable. Also on the ones I viewed the critical response section solely lists IMDb user ratings as the entirety of the section which is a problem because we don't list user ratings and again IMDb is not a reliable source. Finally the plot sections on the articles I viewed are way too long going over the maximum word count allowed at MOS:TVPLOT. I recommend redirecting all of them and reinstating the table with compliant episode summaries at the LoE page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I did glance at the first episodes article (which I didn't do originally) and the sources seem valid (Deadline Hollywood, TFC, A.V. Club) so it could probably stay as is unless all of the information is already duplicated at the series article in which case it should be redirected. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I am getting so tired of editors creating useless episode articles like this. We need a firm guideline on the minimum to include in an article, as the discussion on separate episode articles has come up at least four times in the past couple of months (Mandalorian, Into the Dark, Spongebob, now UKS). All these articles need redirecting and the summaries restored (and since when do we not include an inline table summary if the episode has an article?). I will happily draftify the 13 articles (so the content isn't deleted) and restore the LoE article to how it was. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection having the 13 episode articles draftify as they are not even close to pass WP:GNG. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the course of action here, and wanted to add we have to make sure discussion does not die down either above or at Wikipedia:Notability (television) to ensure we actual make a notability guideline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Update: I went ahead and draftified all of the 13 episode articles. Even the first episode article was copied and pasted from the main article and List of episodes article. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

These are of course not appropriate for mainspace. I've encouraged the author to add these synopses to Wikia. The information is not "useless", but just not part of Wikipedia's goal. We shouldn't just bin useful work like this. We should always be encouraging people to repurpose the content for another venue when hard work has gone into it, even if that work is misguided with respect to Wikipedia's goal. — Bilorv (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that more rules and guidelines would be no help in such cases, because the article clearly makes no attempt at passing the existing texts WP:GNG, WP:IRS etc. What is needed is patience and engagement in discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that every few weeks some fairly new editor would make episode articles for episodes of a TV series and the episode articles only the plot and/or copied and pasted information from the main article. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

NFL on Nickelodeon

Is this an appropriate standalone article?! It was a one-off broadcast (at least, as of now). I could see merging some of that content to Nickelodeon, but I really can't see the justification for an entire article on a single broadcast like this... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Skimmed through the article earlier and thought the same myself. As the lead puts it clearly, "The NFL on Nickelodeon is the branding used for broadcasts of National Football League (NFL) games..." And then the infobox lists that there has been 1 season/1 episode of this? Definitely not, a 'branding' would not be using seasons or episodes. I'm sure the information could be used elsewhere, and maybe being a separate article (like it currently is) if there were to be plenty more NFL on Nickelodeon games, but as a one-off, a standalone article doesn't seem necessary.

I really wouldn't be surprised if there were more NFL games aired on Nickelodeon in the future with the positive reception I've seen regarding this game, but nothing has been announced in regards to the future and a one-time branding shouldn't justify a standalone article at this point (unless it were to be SUPER notable for whatever reason(s)). Magitroopa (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There is also a separate article just for this game, to which the NFL on Nickelodeon redirects. I think this is getting a little out of hand. Jdavi333 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I created the redirect mainly because, as a one-off at the moment, it's a better and relevant location. I also declined the speedy deletion request because A7 is not about notability, but not having an indication of importance, which is a lower standard than notability. The amount of notoriety/coverage this game received because of the Nickelodeon involvement does meet this, in my opinion. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If anything then keep the NFL on Nickelodeon page and get rid of the game page. The game itself was not notable (except maybe the first application of the "no PAT on a game ending score that doesn't matter" rule). Make a page for the coverage, and mention the game. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that seems completely backwards – the game is more likely notable than a one-off programming stunt. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I concur with IJBall here. The game is more notable as it aired on several different networks simultaneously. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Is TVPassport a reliable source?

Awikiuserintheworld brought the website [3] to my attention. I'm curious what folks think about it as RS. From what I can tell, it's based in Canada and is not WP:SPS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've found no issue with it. I've used it for The Next Step and we're currently using it for Vikings season 6, and it's always been correct. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is. The dates may be wrong, but otherwise the episodes are correct. Oh, and the seasons are wrong. Awikiuserintheworld (talk)

That sounds like it's anything but reliable... At the least, I wouldn't use this if any other reliable sourcing is available for the same info. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of this, Awikiuserintheworld? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Spongebob episode articles

Further to the discussion of individual episode article notability above, I thought I'd bring to discussion the episode articles for SpongeBob SquarePants which are either not Wikiproject-tagged or only WP Animation-tagged, so they wouldn't necessarily be noticed. But for the purposes of episode broadcast, they come under television guidelines.

"Survival of the Idiots" was recently created and I PROD'ed it for non-notability through new page review, since it is almost entirely a plot summary and at the time the only other sources was direct from Nickelodeon saying it was broadcast and included on a DVD. This is basically saying that it exists, which is not notable. The article creator removed the PROD with the reason that it was notable, no evidence provided (I know anyone can remove a PROD, but when they are so obviously ignoring concerns just to stop a speedy delete that doesn't come under an easy category it's plain insulting to Wikipedia process). They then seem to have scoured the internet for any other source and added IMDb ratings and appearance on a Screen Rant list. We all know the IMDb guidelines. SR is an RS, a little more reliable than Buzzfeed but in the same realm - I use it, but as supplemental, and I think anyone who knows media sources would agree that coverage on SR doesn't automatically denote notability, and, moreover, that an episode only being covered outside of publication on a rank list of its season's episodes, unless it's an exceptionally good source, isn't a metric of notability. Most recently, a note was added that the entire plot description is copied from Fandom wiki. If this is the case for all the Spongebob episodes, which are almost all WP:ALLPLOT, then we are now just hosting non-notable duplicates.

I then checked the previous episode listed in the SotI infobox, which is this Christmas episode. It was nominated for deletion, the AfD closed as redirect to the season article/episode list, but it was recreated not long after. I actually thought this episode might be more notable, as it serves as the introduction of a recurring character, but there are no sources about it. The patent lack of notability and the behavior of multiple editors blatantly ignoring Wikipedia process to ensure these episode articles continue to exist when they know they should not concerns me. Given the subject matter, I also consider that the editors may be young children who simply don't care about rules, and intervention is needed.

Maybe discussion could be had, because several of Spongebob's first season episode articles are GAs (though some of those I would definitely consider for review), but after a point there is no external coverage and so no notability and burning them all seems obvious. The Christmas episode is an interesting case: it falls between some of the GA episodes, making the lack of coverage and notability much more obvious. Link to the navbox for easy access to all episode articles. Kingsif (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah one of them is at reassessment for possibly delisting from GA, To SquarePants or Not to SquarePants, and I recommended wider discussion. By their nature, kids' shows receive less coverage (e.g. in professional reviews) than adults' shows with the same impact, but I don't think we have any policies/guidelines which aim to counteract this balance (and there are good reasons we might not want to).

Young editors are often a net positive but can cause issues when it comes to non-notable and non-reliable information. Wherever possible we should be directing them to Wikia—judging by its size there's a big community at Wikia for SpongeBob.

I think we should have a bulk AfD or RfC or something about mass redirecting the SpongeBob articles, because it seems that even the GAs have little more than a plot, routine details about credits/release and a couple of borderline-reliability reviews. However, it would be good to check if there are any book sources that might make exceptional episodes notable. I'm sure the pilot is but I'm not even convinced its Reception section demonstrates that at the moment. — Bilorv (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the reassessment. Good point; the pilot has other issues in its development that I would like to address, too, but I think it much more easily passes notability. I might post a link to this discussion at the Animation and Nickelodeon projects, but mass AfD could be the way to go. Since there are likely GAs that would be deleted, I'll link there, too. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

One more point I meant to make: I've been seeing a lot more of Screen Rant lately and I consider it reliable, but not necessarily significant. It has a lot of listicles and even quotes IMDb or other user-generated sources a lot, so "X was 18th on a Screen Rant list" is not necessarily significant literary criticism, but it can be fine to quote for a specific piece of critical analysis or a real-world production detail. I would consider it almost never relevant for determining notability. — Bilorv (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Support taking to AFD, although I have concerns that a mass AFD might fail on procedural grounds. I've mainly been looking at To Squarepants or not to Squarepants, and the sourcing is very weak and there doesn't seem to be anything better available that I can find. Coverage of a lot of these episodes seems to be limited to plot recaps with small chunks or analysis is pretty marginal sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me for barging in, but I agree. Episode articles like "Family Gay" and "You Only Move Twice" stay because they have analyses of the content, and development information, so you get a better idea of what went into making the episode. SpongeBob doesn't do many DVD commentaries or interviews, so articles like "Krusty Krab Training Video" and "Squid Noir" have nothing to say besides "this aired and some random people liked it." Children's literature and TV is usually a problem on Wikipedia, ripe with plagiarism and unreliable sources. Scrooge200 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I also support taking these episodes to AFD. Pages like "The Legend of Boo-Kini Bottom" and "Squid Noir" are WP:PLOTONLY, containing only a plot section and a premiere date that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina^{wanna talk?} 20:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Beyond the Break episodes

Pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I'm soliciting opinion here – Is this a viable standalone article? Or should it be merged into Beyond the Break. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See as there's hardly anything on the main article, it should probably be merged back. There's no real justification to split off the content, at least for page size. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

TV guidelines: Soundtrack

Should we include the soundtrack of a TV show or Webseries in the article like in The Family Man (Indian TV series) and Sacred Games (soundtrack). MOS:TVAVOID says to avoid listing featured music. I’m confused. Can someone guide me here. defcon5 (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Not listing featured music is typically meant for not listing songs that appear in episodes throughout a series. If this was an official release, then it should be covered, as it's part of the media attached to the show. I'm not sure in these specific cases, but Smallville kind of covers it in 2 ways. First. there is a section under merchandise that covers the officially release of the soundtracks. We don't list the songs themselves there. Then, under Music there is a part that discusses key songs used throughout the series, but it's tied to real world commentary that focuses on why they chose that particular song (thus we don't cover every song simply because it was used).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Bignole—official releases should be covered in a distinguished section. The theme music, the composer and any interview coverage or significant critical analysis of music can be important for some shows, but it all depends on the sourcing. Indiscriminate lists of all songs used in a program is what MOS:TVAVOID is about. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

okay. Thanks for the clarification defcon5 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Alp Akar up for deletion

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Alp Akar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

Turkish actor. I think we have an English language systemic bias. What we have here is a failure to communicate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hard to parse if the subject even meets WP:NACTOR, as the roles types (e.g. main role vs recurring vs guest) are not even indicated. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

TV show title card image policy

What exactly is this WP's policy on using screenshots of TV show title cards. I'm thinking specifically of this edit which changed a user-created facsimile of the show's title card to an apparent screenshot of the title card. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Our MOS suggests that generally a screenshot of the series title card (as it appears in the show) be used in the infobox (for this discussion, I'm sticking with this suggestion). However, it gets a bit murky for series that are just text and if they would satisfy WP:PDFONT and could be uploaded to commons and as a SVG. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the point was to use the title card as seen in the series for identification, so if the title card isn't really different from a simple text version then that would be fine, but in general my preference would be to use the official image over a user-generated version. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

In the specific case, there's no way either either is free, so this isn't a free-vs-non-free issue. That said, I would argue that if there's no free option, then the next consideration is if the title card with all assets are so unique as to require the overall frame (something like "Monty Python's Flying Circus" or "Lost") or where the title is shown over very generic background images such as the above case. In such a latter case, I would suggest it is preferrable, if it exists, to use the background-less version over the whole title card, since it is clearer, but I will be clear that's not a non-free aspect, just a visually easier one to see. --Masem (t) 04:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line: Which is better? The user-created facsimile of the show's title, or the screenshot of the title card? I've been led to believe the former is preferable, as it's just a facsimile. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The image in question File:Legacies logo 2.png lacks any sourcing or sufficient information to tell where it was obtained (the show's website? did the user use image manipulation tools off a high-quality screencap of the title card to get it? or did they try to mock it up based on the title card?) to the point where that image should be considered a failure of NFC and should be deleted outright.

But for the question at hand, if the user completely made the image from scratch and it was otherwise a non-free image, that's also a no-go for us- we don't allow user-made recreations of non-free works. (a user-made version of a PD-text is fine, however). --Masem (t) 15:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Section: Controversy

Hi. I wanted to know from the experienced editors if there is any consensus among the editors about dealings with Controversies that some shows run into. Few Indian shows like Tandav, Mirzapur and Paatal Lok have run into some or other controversies recently. And content regarding those cases has been added to the articles in most cases. If there is some controversy around a show, should that be added under a stand-alone section like Controversy or should it be placed under the Reception under a subsection. defcon5 (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on what the controversy is. A section like this can more or less "float" around the article where it will be most helpful based on what the controversy is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO, 'Controversy' subsections generally belong in either the 'Production' or 'Reception' sections. I'm not thinking of a case where it would appropriately go elsewhere (has there ever been a 'Broadcast' or 'Release' controversy?!...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to ever titling a section "Controvers(y/ies)". All the best media is controversial, and so is all the worst. Either way it's an NPOV issue. If it's one "controversy" then put it in "Reception" or "Production" depending on whether it's about content or the real-life context; if it's too long then a subsection title should describe the event (e.g. "Firing of X" or "Criticisms of sexism"). If it's multiple controversies then segregating it in a distinguished section is an NPOV issue. Incorporate them normally into "Production" or "Reception" as appropriate. Only group them if they're about overlapping issues.

In the specific three articles given, it looks like there's a mix of "Reception" (criticising a show on moral grounds is a perfectly normal part of audience reaction) and "Production" (when it comes to bans or events which can impede the show's distribution or continued production). — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

An exception around controversies tied to Bilorv's advice is when a controversy is well-named by RSes to a point that it would be a reasonable search term in that TV series article. An example that I would consider appropriate is the "Purple rock controversy" tied to Survivor: Marquesas, for example (though per Bilorv, this probably should be a sub-section under Reception, and I am confident it can be sourced better than it is presently). But this needs to be a controversy as identified by many RSes, and not just a pet peeve type issue from one RS or a fan issue being echoed by an RS, and there certainly should be input from people associated with the show to address the controversy, otherwise its just one-sided criticism. --Masem (t) 17:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

And to add as another example of an exceptional case, Survivor: Island of the Idols had a controversy that forced production to change aspects of the game mid-season and subsequent rules for later seasons and once this aired, further created more controversial discussion in sources when it was shown what happened (it was impossible not to cut what happened from the broadcast version). Right now this is its own Controversy section, but maybe this is better named something else, but this is an example of something that should stand in its own section or sub-section. --Masem (t) 17:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok got it. Thankyou all. defcon5 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes

There is currently a merge discussion at Talk:List of The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy episodes#Merger proposal for seasons 3 to 6 if anyone is interested. SL93 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Whose Line Is It Anyway? episode tables

I had previously raised this concern at Talk:List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series) episodes#Episode table parameters back in October. Basically, the problem in short, all the table parameters are being entirely misused. For example...:

• RTitle is being used to show episode airdates
• ProdCode is being used to show Performer #4
• Viewers is being used to show special guests in episodes (if there are any in a certain episode)
• Aux4 is being used to show episode viewership data

I had tried to see ways it could be fixed on User:Magitroopa/sandbox/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American season 16), but gave up. Revisiting this, I feel like the easiest/best way to fix this would be moving performers/special guests to the summary section, so then the summaries would show performers/special guests and the games performed, then allowing all the parameters to be in the correct locations. Then, the actual episode titles (that can be viewed here) can be used, since titles are not being shown at all (those same episode titles are how episodes are listed on the official website).

Please feel free to let me know if that idea is good, or if there's some better way at handling this. I'll see if I can attempt to fix the tables at some point, but anyone can feel free to themselves if they wish to. One of my main issues with tackling this is that it encompasses all 17 seasons of the American series, not just one season. It also seems like the issue is present at List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (British TV series) episodes. Magitroopa (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've commented at Talk:List of Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series) episodes, and given one possible alternative table set-up. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I added an alternate formatting style for that show which uses correct parameters. The example is on the talk page. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Conversion of the {{cite rt}} code

I've currently started a discussion at Template talk:Cite rt#Convert to Citation Style 1 wrapper template to discuss converting the {{cite rt}} (Rotten Tomatoes) template to a wrapper of {{cite web}}. Please join the discussion there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on including channels in TV filmographies?

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.

---

Anyone have thoughts on whether TV channels/networks should be included in television filmographies? I don't see these at WP:FILMOGRAPHY, nor do I see them in the various featured lists on actor filmographies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's beneficial for a filmography table, unless by some chance an actor appeared in something titled similarly that appeared on different networks. But then, that could be stated in a potential "Notes" column. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: You may want to post this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. But the answer is pretty much "Definitely, no" – they should not be included. We don't include film studios in the 'Film' filmography tables, so why would include TV networks in the 'Television' ones?! (Similarly, film directors should not be included, regardless of what some WP:FLs do.) Again, this is why there's a link to the "work" article in these tables – if people want to know things like TV network, studio, director, etc. they click on the link and read the article on the specific work. All of this kind of information is totally superfluous and unnecessary in an actor's Filmography table. So, yeah – this kind of thing should always be removed (IMO). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll post it there, and if anybody else wants to comment, please feel free to do so at Filmmakers. If you all don't mind, I'll copy/paste your replies there. Thanks, all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2021 (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.

You Wrote It, You Watch It

Noob here... I have 8 episode names for Jon Stewart's early show on MTV, "You Wrote It, You Watch It". The article on the show is currently a stub. What is the method for adding this information to the article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Wrote_It,_You_Watch_It

I have the episodes on tape so I know the episode names are correct, however, I don't know the air dates, nor does the show appear to have a production code for each episode. This info seems to be common in episode lists for TV shows on Wikipedia. The recordings do have full credits so key production personnel could be listed/tagged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlennie (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Web television, Streaming television and what to do about these pages

I've been thinking about this for a while, after reading discussions on here, from last fall in November, December, and October, about this topic. It seems that both are pretty similar, as it stands, with none of the sources on the Web TV page, other than those to the seemingly defunct International Academy of Web Television, even using the term, while the streaming tv page seems like it has a stronger basis. It even seems that a good amount of the material on the web tv page would be better served being on the Web series (which links to the web tv page anyway). I did some preliminary searching, and found the term "web television" used by the University of Minnesota Law School, Aymar Jean Christian's book ("Open TV: Innovation beyond Hollywood and the Rise of Web Television") and an article by her using the same term, a mention of web TV in a source within the Library of Congress's Web Archive, and an article in Apple Insider using the term. In contrast, IndieWire, Lifewire, HuffPost, and the Wall Street Journal have used the term, as have articles in Overland journal, and WWD. It has also been used in university events, in books titled Netflix at the Nexus: Content, Practice, and Production in the Age of Streaming Television and The State of Streaming Television: The Shift in Business Models That Will Define the Future of TV, along with by Northwestern University, Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy, a honors thesis here, and a masters thesis here. Finally, IGI Global gives a definition of streaming television as "television that digitally distributes its audiovisual content as streaming over the Internet network," which is pretty broad.

In sum, there really isn't a consensus in reliable sources, from what I can find (although my research on this is a very preliminary examination of the subject), over whether to use "web television" or "streaming television," although there seem to be more sources in favor of using the latter term, especially with all the streaming platforms these days. Personally, when creating or updating a page, I tend to not use either one, but with so many pages using the term "web television" (over 1100 by my count), while about 650 use the term "streaming television" and there being an unsourced List of web television series page, I think there should be some consensus on here what we should do with these pages, whether they should be merged, left alone, or changed in another way, and whether the terms themselves should be used at all (past discussions have seemed to say they shouldn't be used at all).

Anyway, I'd like all your thoughts on this before I propose or change anything on the Web television, Streaming television, or associated pages. Thanks. Historyday01 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, web television looks like quite a weird collection of facts to me. I take it that the fact it mentions very little post-2010 content means that no-one's really given it much attention over the last decade. It would seem to me weird on the face of it to have both articles. I would think streaming television should be about content produced for the internet in a manner similar to that of broadcast television. Web television implies to me that it includes amateur content (like web series e.g. someone's ten-part YouTube series). I'm a bit confused by the scope of Web series as well, which seems to include this professional streaming television content, but I would think it better to have that article just be about "webisodes" (which could be professionally produced) and amateur video series (and reserve anything with a broadcast television-like budget and production process for streaming television).

For clarity: this is an initial suggestion to merge web television to various articles and redefine the scope of web series to short-form/low budget/amateur television-like internet content. Open to having my mind changed though. — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, that was my thought too. The web TV page does seem to be a mix of facts together. Looking at the web series page, I think it isn't as well defined as it should, especially since one section brings in content from the Web TV page, one talks about awards (linking back to web tv again), and the web 2.0 section has no sources. Even the production and distribution section needs work. I agree with you the web series page should only be about webisodes and amateur video series, while everything else should to the streaming television page or any other appropriate page. From my understanding, web series would include shows on YouTube like Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss, while shows on streaming platforms like Netflix, Hulu, Peacock, and the like would fall under streaming television. So, I would support merging web tv to various articles, while redefining the scope of web series to "short-form/low budget/amateur television-like internet content," as some articles allude to it including those not on major networks, that's why I renamed one page to List of adult animated web series, after a discussion on the List of adult animated television series talk page mostly including shows on YouTube, although, of course, that can be changed if need be. Historyday01 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

My take on one article vs. the other:
"Streaming television" is the nuts and bolts of the media and what makes digital television possible.
"Web television" is the production of television-like series and movies that can only be viewed as digital streaming content on the Internet, and produced or made available by digital content streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Apple+, etc. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 01:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, Hmm, I could see that difference, but I still think both pages could be clearer, especially the Web television page. Historyday01 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure which source is better

Collider or Variety. Recently, this edit was processed due to a source on Collider saying the news source can confirm it is "Little Town". However, Variety in this article, says it is "The Little Town" directly from the composer of the series. I was hoping someone could clear up whether which sources are better. Thank you. Starzoner (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Starzoner, I think both sources are pretty good and reliable. The WP:RSP listing says for Variety "as an entertainment trade magazine, Variety is considered a reliable source in its field." As for Collider, a discussion on the Untitled Spider-Man: Far From Home sequel talk page, springing from the reliable sources noticeboard it is said "Nothing has come forth to dispute Collider's report or reliability" and another editor adds "Myself and many of the editors who actively edit this page and other MCU articles are in favor of the Collider source's information as we see nothing wrong or unreliable in it's report." Historyday01 (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are the "gold standards" as far as I am concerned – they are always the "best" sources. Then LA Times and The New York Times. Then most other newspapers, Deadline and Entertainment Weekly. I'd put something like Collider well down the list – it's not "unreliable", but it's not "top notch" either; it's in the same category with stuff like Comingsoon.net IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, Historyday01, gonna revert if you are ok with it. Starzoner (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would surely go with Variety as the better source, yeah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, I agree. I think Variety is a better and more solid publication, but I also don't have an issue with Collider and have used it in the past. I would add that Deadline and EW often do press releases (or what appear to be press releases) for a variety of shows, listing the producers, cast, etc., but that doesn't make them any less reliable. Historyday01 (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Completely agreed with IJBall, this is how I've been using Variety and Collider. But in this particular case Collider acknowledge that someone has said "The" and has "confirmed" that it's just Little Town. This seems more like a developing story, or a figure misspeaking in an interview, or that the later source got new information. So I'd go with (just) Little Town. — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification: RfC on a webseries naming style

Web series seem to be served by your project (though do let me know if I'm mistaken), so I'm just dropping a note to invite more participants to the RfCs on renaming two subarticles of the Critical Role webseries.

The two proposals can be found here:

• Talk:Critical Role (campaign one)#Requested move 30 January 2021
• Talk:Critical Role (campaign two)#Requested move 30 January 2021

Thanks for looking, (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Little pob (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

British Bake Off winners under discussion

I have started the discussion about individual winners of The Great British Bake Off at Talk:The Great British Bake Off. --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposing an Addition to MOS:TV's 'Cast and characters information' to Deal with "Future/Upcoming Casting"

I'd like to propose a change/addition to MOS:TV's current 'Cast and characters information' to deal with the situation of "casting announcements" for future or upcoming casting on current TV series. I am posting to WT:TV because it has more page watchers than WT:MOSTV, and will hopefully generate a larger discussion. (I will post a {{Please see}} to the latter for this discussion.)

I have increasingly noticed the issue/problem of editors adding "upcoming cast" to 'Cast'/'Characters' sections before such people have even appeared on a TV show. We absolutely should not do this, as per WP:CRYSTALBALL, under the general principle of "plans can change". I have absolutely no issue with adding casting announcements (sourced!) to a 'Casting' or 'Production' section – that's what they're there for. But people should not be added to cast sections until they actually appear (and are credited) on the TV show itself.

Thus I propose adding wording along the following lines to the 'Cast and characters information' section of MOS:TV (probably in the fifth paragraph in the section):

Sourced casting announcements should be added to the 'Casting' or 'Production' section, but upcoming cast should not be added to 'Cast' sections until they actually appear and are credited on the series, and are confirmed to appear in the reported role type.

The wording doesn't need to be exactly this – I am open to suggestions for improving this – but something along these lines.

But I have noticed this has increasingly becoming an issue at some of the articles I frequent, like Legacies (TV series) (where we managed to keep this impulse under control) and Big Sky (American TV series) (where I just had to remove almost a dozen listings for people who haven't even appeared on the show yet).

To just buttress the point, there have been numerous instances where "casting announcements" have not come to pass. A recent example was Pandora (TV series), where it was publicly announced that Charisma Carpenter was to be recurring in the show's second season, but then Carpenter was recast with Roxanne McKee with zero public announcements about it – IOW, if someone had added Carpenter to a 'Recurring' cast section for this article before season 2 had premiered, it would have been wrong/inaccurate. I have also seen examples over the years where the entertainment press will report some actor "has been cast in a recurring role for the upcoming season..." of some TV series, only for that actor to appear in only 1 or 2 episodes (and, thus, not be actually "recurring").

References

Long story short, this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue – a casting announcement is just a casting announcement, and is fine in a 'Production' section, but it's no guarantee that that actor will actually appear in said TV series, or will appear in said TV series in the role as reported. So we should not be adding "cast" to a 'Cast' section until they actually appear, as credited, on the TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I've added names of cast members only if it is confirmed in reliable sources they will be in a show, but leaving is subject to change, if need be. Like if the official account of the series says that so and so are the voice actors, I'd add that. I followed that model on the upcoming S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters web series, where the official account for the show (and their patreon) has clearly outlined the VAs (especially the main three protagonists), as have various sources, at the present. But, I'm definitely not going to add random names (as some people tried to do on the Mulligan (TV series) page) in if there are no sources. For instance on the High Guardian Spice and Q-Force (TV series) pages, I haven't added any sources for who voices particular characters, as that knowledge isn't known yet. Still, I see what you are saying there. Even so, I'd be willing to change my opinion on that as I am also interested what others have to say. Historyday01 (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have always disagreed with this idea, it doesn't make much sense to me. If someone is cast in a show then that means they are part of the cast. If they get removed from the cast in the future then they can be removed from the list, but it is not a CRYSTALBALL issue to include people in the cast list when they are added to the cast. If we were to follow this logic then we should never have a cast list for a TV series or film until they are released, which seems like an obviously silly thing to do. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Adamstom.97 on this one too. People can be added and removed from the cast as necessary. When the cast member of a TV series, web series, or film are announced before they are released and that information is proven in reliable sources, then why not add them to the page? That doesn't make sense to me. Historyday01 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Because that announcement is just an intention to do something – it doesn't become an actual fact until the project is released. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Arguably, that's exactly what we should do – really, there is no "cast" until something is actually released. Prior to that, it's just "production". No one is actually in the "cast" in something until you read the credits and their name is there. Reporting "cast" for unreleased projects is frankly something Wikipedia should not do – we should be a "historical record" after the fact. We're not a news service. Reporting casting notices in 'Production' is fine.

But aside from that specific question (which isn't the thrust of my proposal), we absolutely should not be adding people to 'Cast' sections of currently airing TV series until the relevant episodes are released and these people's names are in the cast list (for main cast), or they are in enough episodes to confirm "recurring" status. Why is it necessary to add them to the 'Cast' listing before the fact if this is covered in the 'Production'/'Casting' section? Frankly, I've never understood the motivation to add cast to the 'Cast' sections before the episodes have even aired – they're not "cast" yet. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

IJBall, I think that intention is fine to add, as long as it is supported by reliable sources. Besides, some projects are in production for a year or more (especially when it comes to animation), meaning that information would have to stay as hidden text for all that time, leading to an annoying mess on the pages of upcoming shows, with no guarantee that other users won't delete it because they find it "unnecessary." When the show, TV series, or such comes out, then that list can be reconfirmed. When it comes to currently airing series, I think the same rule would apply. I never have a "cast" section of the articles I've edited (mostly in animation), just a character section, with a small mention of those who voice the characters in that section. Historyday01 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

there is no "cast" until something is actually released - that is just not true. People are added to the cast of a film or TV show during pre-production or even earlier, and then they perform during filming. Are you seriously saying it is okay to say someone has been added to the cast for the film when they are cast, but not add them to a list of cast members until the editors of Wikipedia watch the end credits? I really don't understand this line of thought. The cast list is just an easy to read version of the people already discussed in the casting section! - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The 'Cast' list is for the actual cast, not for those "intended" to be in the cast "eventually" (maybe). So, yes – you aren't really in the cast of a TV series until episodes with your name in the credits air. Before that, it's a 'Production' announcement – 'Production' sections can contain info about a show before it airs. Cast lists should be about a show once it has aired. This isn't ambiguous. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one is arguing that this info shouldn't be added – I've also said this kind of thing is good in a 'Production' section. The question is whether we should be adding "announced cast" to the 'Cast' listing/section before the fact. I can't think of any good reason why we should – we should wait until the episodes in question actually air. Again, you aren't really in the cast of a TV show until the episodes with you in the credits air. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you aren't changing your mind, and I'm not either, I just don't agree that what you are saying is true. Let's see what others have to say. But if the consensus does end up siding with you we will need to prepare for the backlash to us deleting cast lists from all upcoming film and TV articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, that is part of the reason I oppose this change. It makes more work for us Wikipedia editors and could take forever to ensure that all the articles on TV series are updated, a hapless task if you ask me. IJBall, I personally do not have a problem with adding the cast before the show airs, as long as reliable sources show them on the cast, including the guest cast. As said in a somewhat related discussion on here in the past, "we use the info from a reliable source, and if changes are made, we update the article" and another that says "if the TV show itself had a page that was notable enough to keep on Wikipedia, then the list of cast of that show would be a given, or at least you could use simple sources like the show credits, books on the show, etc, to prove that information." There is no doubt that people are added to a TV show or film cast early on (in the pre-production stage), and like Adamstom.97, I don't understand this line of thought, either. I know some have said that "we should identify cast as they show in the credits and pipe to the correct article," but I would argue that doesn't prevent us, as editors, from adding names of the voice actors (if its animation) or actors (if its live-action) into an article if they have proper sourcing. Of course, any unsourced claims about voice actors should be removed, as some noted, "we must stick strictly to the main cast as defined by producers, not personal opinions on the order." I also worry that this addition would put further strain on updating Wikipedia pages (especially those of upcoming shows), but could lead to future edit wars among those editors (the backlash Adamstom.97 is talking about) who don't agree with this idea in the future. Honestly, its enough work already to update the existing pages, and you want to add to that burden? Why? Waiting until the episodes air also puts the onus on the Wikipedia editors to watch the shows of the series they are editing. Personally, I would never have the time to watch the pages of all the series I've edited. The intended cast IS the cast for all intents and purposes. Similar to Adamstom.97, I'm not really into changing my mind either at this point. Historyday01 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be added. If a cast member is reliably sourced to make an upcoming appearance in the series, and many times, but not all, those reports are given once the casting has been made or the actor has already filmed, then it isn't WP:CRYSTAL at that point. Yes, obviously, some things change at various points of production, such as the example given above of someone being cast and then it turned out they didn't portray that role, but I don't see the initial casting news as something we shouldn't accurately state in the cast section, since it was true and accurate at the time of the report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it confuses "casting" (which is 'Production') and "cast" (which is determined by the final product). Again, no one is saying that casting info shouldn't be included – but I can't figure out why it needs to be in the 'Production' section (where it belongs) and again in the 'Cast' section which by contrast should be based on the actual credits from the show (as per "all names should be referred to as credited"). And, again, the instances where announced casting info ends up being wrong is not insignificant. I think an encyclopedia should have higher standards, and we shouldn't be running this like a fan site – we should update most info as it happens, and not make assumptions based on announcements. Also, I'd again encourage everyone to reread WP:CRYSTAL, esp. #1 and #5 which I think are directly relevant to this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Favre1fan93, that it makes sense to portray that information at the time of the report. IJBall, of the articles I've added (like the one I created for an upcoming series I mentioned earlier), I've only put the names of the VAs in the characters section and didn't add it to the production section, as I was seeing that as more about the production of the show itself than the cast. Even in more detailed pages, like the one for Cleopatra in Space (which I've edited a lot in the past), the cast are in the characters section, but not mentioned in the production section for the same reason. I would agree that "we should update most info as it happens" and I would argue that includes adding in actors into TV shows, web series, or movies, when reliable sources are available that show those individuals. If the casting info is wrong, that can be corrected later. As I have said before, the cast of films, TV shows, and the like is determined well before it "airs" or shows in some medium, so why not indicate that in the article? As for #1 of WP:CRYSTAL, it talks about events, not names of individuals, and I wouldn't say that a cast listing can be classified as an event. Even if it is considered an event (which it isn't), then the part that it should be included "only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" would apply. As for #5, I would not say that a list of cast members is a product announcement or a rumor, as long as that casting is proven by a reliable source (like something such as Animation Magazine or Deadline Hollywood for instance). That is a very broad stretch of both of those concepts. Historyday01 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Until an episode of a series airs, we have no idea what the official credits will be. Let's take for example a brand new series, starting with episode 1. At that point it airs or release, many times we have info, reliable sourced, for actors appearing in starring, recurring, or guest roles that did not appear in that episode. Our cast lists get adjusted for the episode 1 credits, and I see nothing wrong with keeping those announced actors below the episode 1 credited actors. They can then get shuffled into the list as they appear, and completely removed in the rare instance of the example provided. None of this is WP:CRYSTAL #1 or #5 as a casting isn't an "event" nor is it a "product announcement or rumor". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, Favre1fan93, totally agree. To wait until the series itself premieres to add the names of cast members to a characters list seems like too much of a burden for editors on here. Historyday01 (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree with the distinction IJBall is making. The "Cast" section is specifically intended for credited actors, which is not known until their episodes are released. Announcements of future/upcoming cast members belong under "Production" or "Casting". This follows how we don't update the infobox with new season and episode counts until those have actually happened, nor the "starring" section there until those stars are credited as such in released episodes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

But that is inconsistent with the way we treat unreleased series and films. Do you agree that there should be no Cast section until we see the credits for an episode? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Adamstom.97 on this, like I had in the past. That belief is inconsistent with how unreleased films and series have been treated in the past. And based on the discussion on here, I am starting to doubt there will be a consensus on this topic. Joeyconnick, I get what you are saying, but I would argue that what you are saying doesn't apply until after a show has begun. Historyday01 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I consider that a separate issue than what I was proposing which was about currently airing TV series not yet-to-premiere ones, though I definitely have ideas on how we should handle this in not-yet-released TV series and movies – instead of a 'Cast' section with a "cast list", these articles should have a 'Casting' section with sentences and paragraphs of prose, which would then be "converted" to 'Cast' (list) sections (really, what would happen is a 'Cast' section would be created, and the 'Casting' section would be moved under 'Production') when the work was released. But that's a much bigger issue that would require a much wider discussion than this one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

What's unfortunate is that it's clear there will never be consensus on this issue – so we're going to have one set of TV series articles in which editors will rush to add "new cast" to the 'Cast' section as soon as Deadline publishes it (and the idea that Deadline Hollywood is going to be a significant content-driver like this is vaguely terrifying...) – even adding "next season" cast as early as the June or July before Fall TV premieres (and, again, a not-insignificant portion of these will end up being flat-out wrong), and another set of TV series articles where editors are going to keep "new cast" out of the 'Cast' section until the episodes actually air and credits confirm the cast (and casting level). This is only going to lead to confusion among less frequent editors. But it's clear that neither side is backing down here, and on my end I'm never going to agree that we should "add cast" to 'Cast' sections before crediting confirms it (which is doubly-true of "recurring" cast which can't be verified until after several appearances). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. IJBall, I do think it is better for not-yet-released TV series and movies to just have the cast integrated with the characters list (divided into main, supporting, and other characters if that is known), where the characters name is listed, like I have on one of the pages I mentioned earlier "Salem (voiced by Laura Bailey)." I think that format works fine, personally. I think that would be better than having a specific casting section. Additionally, I'm not sure about having a specific section "with sentences and paragraphs of prose, which would then be "converted" to 'Cast' (list) sections" only to later remove it when the work comes out. Further building on what Pyxis Solitary said below, what you are proposing could put articles about shows cancelled before episodes are aired in jeopardy as well. I can agree with you on the point that I don't think there will be a consensus either. I would also agree that are sure to be different types of editors. Personally, I can say that for my part, I'd only add cast members if shown by a reliable source, and I try to not over-use sources like Deadline. Often that isn't an issue, because if the show is relatively well known, casting announcements are posted on various reliable sites. Historyday01 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"...what you are proposing could put articles about shows cancelled before episodes are aired in jeopardy as well." Those articles are generally taken to WP:AFD after the cancellation where they are usually deleted – that's maybe not the best process, but it works. But, again, that has nothing to do with what is being proposed, and is a total sideshow issue. Again, casting announcements properly belong under 'Casting' or 'Production' and no one is saying that shouldn't be done. But no one has come up with a compelling reason why we need to put them in 'Casting' and again in the 'Cast' section before episodes with the crediting to verify the casting info are aired. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I was saying that it could put those articles in jeopardy, not that it would. And if the articles end up getting deleted, well, that's up to the users on here. And I will agree with you that it is a side issue, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. In terms of the casting announcements, I see no reason to put them in a casting section and a cast section after episodes have aired, but rather I'd only put them one place, credited in a manner similar to what I mentioned in my previous comment. I looked back at some of the previous articles I've added and I did add a casting section on the Magical Girl Friendship Squad page, but only because there were some interviews with the cast. I did something similar on the Cleopatra in Space page, adding a voice acting section, which mentioned one of the cast, but no one else, because none of the other cast members had been interviewed. In a lot of the shows I've edited on here, either they are shows not in English or the cast don't talk much about their roles, or if they do, its in tweets, and citing too many tweets ends up citing too many self-published sources, which we are not supposed to cite on here in excess (I try to severly limit the number of tweets and sources like that I use). So that's just my comment on here. Historyday01 (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Regardless of PR announcements about an upcoming series and regardless of media coverage churned out about it, it can always be cancelled before broadcast. Just look at List of television series canceled before airing an episode to get an idea of how it's not a rarity. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Most TV shows that never air an episode are in fact not notable enough for their own articles. And none of that has anything to do with the current proposal which is about whether it's appropriate to list castings in 'Cast' sections before their episodes air. So what's your point? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Media market, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 8 February 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Several subcategories of "Television shows based on comics" up for discussion

Several of the subcategories of Category:Television shows based on comics are up for discussion to be renamed to harmonize their names from "Television series based on..." to "Television shows based on..." per the parent cat name and the other subcategories. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This has been relisted here. Additional comments would be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force § Project scope question

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force § Project scope question. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

List of media portrayals of bisexuality AfD

An AfD for List of media portrayals of bisexuality is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of media portrayals of bisexuality and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I already posted about this on the LGBT project too, but I don't think anyone has joined through there yet. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Web television into Streaming television page

A proposed merger of the Web television page into the Streaming television page is located at Talk:Web television#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"Storyboard" parameters

On episode lists, has there ever been consensus on when storyboard artists are worth listing in episode tables? I wasn't able to find one. This was spurred by The Simpsons (season 1), where they're currently being awkwardly stuffed into the "written by" column, even though storyboarding has nothing to do with writing on The Simpsons. (Of course, it isn't like that for every animated show, which is why I went looking, but came up empty-handed.) Nohomersryan (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Usually, it is an optional parameter. If it is added on the Episode table, it should be on a separate column. For an example: List of Spirit Riding Free episodes. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is an animation series article thing, and I am generally against even doing it, as it "over-stuffs" episodes tables with too many columns. But, as YoungForever says – if you're going to do it at all (which, again, I'm not generally in favor of), it should be a separate (Aux3?) column. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, when you put cinematographers in on episode tables. Otherwise, nope. Ravenswing 09:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that seems like decent enough consensus that they shouldn't be there in this case. Took 'em out. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merger of LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages

A proposed merger of the LGBT themes in anime and manga and History of LGBT anime pages is located at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga#Merger proposal and may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. Historyday01 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Regional sports networks

I was looking at Template:U.S. regional sports networks and am wondering why the following college sports conference networks are not included in the template: ACC Network, Big Ten Network, MountainWest Sports Network, Pac-12 Network, & SEC Network as well as the Longhorn Network.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• MountainWest is defunct, but otherwise, I can't see why not. Ravenswing 16:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ravenswing:, Do you know how to properly include them?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Just edit the template, I fancy? If there's some criterion -- tacit or otherwise -- for inclusion, I'm ignorant of it, and it's sure not like you're a rookie editor! Ravenswing 01:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Most of these are actually not "regional" as they are carried nationally, and some of them are technically ESPN owned channels. Spanneraol (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• @TonyTheTiger: I can do it. Just tell me what to put and where. –Fredddie™ 02:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Fredddie and Spanneraol: the where is why I asked @Ravenswing:. There are a bunch of sections to the template and I am not sure if these belong in any of those or a new one.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • P.S. national is a bit of a misnomer. Some of these channels are only a part of basic cable service regionally although they are available in premium packages in other areas. This is the case here in Chicago with my Comcast/Xfinity service. My basic package only gets BTN and none of the others although they are mostly available with premium packages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I feel like a collegiate row is in order. BYU, Cyclones.tv, and Longhorn would all move to that row unless we limit it to conference channels. –Fredddie™ 13:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It may be that "regional" is a misnomer now, especially with packages and plans where people anywhere get to pickup channels from anywhere. Ravenswing 13:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yea, it's just the ones in the template currently are networks specifically marketed for specific regions like the Fox Sports channels or dedicated to one particular school.. while the ACC and SEC Networks for instance are ESPN branded channels that are available pretty much everywhere... I have them on my basic package in Los Angeles.. while the Pac-12 Network has several regional offshoots Pac-12-Arizona, Pac-12-Los Angeles etc.. the main one and the LA one are in the basic package here while the other ones are in the premium package. It does get confusing, but I don't think many of them are really RSNs... perhaps the template should be rebranded if these are included? Spanneraol (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Special guest star

If an actor is credited as a special guest star on the on-screen credits, is in appropriate to list the actor under "Special guest star" subsection of the "Cast and characters" section? Keep in mind that the actor is not credited with the regular guest starring/recurring cast. An editor claimed it is not appropriate and should just be labeled as "Guest star" or "Guest role" as a subsection of the "Cast and characters" section. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

We've had this argument here before too. Some claim that it's "trivia" and shouldn't be listed in our TV articles. A lot of us feel it's directly from a TV show's credits so it's very relevant. I am clearly in the latter camp – I can't think of any reason why the distinction between "guest star" and "special guest star" isn't directly relevant. I suppose it could be local consensus at some articles that it isn't "relevant", or "trivia" not to be included. But for many series, I think the distinction clearly is "relevant" – Legacies being a good example, as "Special guest star" crediting seems to be reserved for those who appeared in either The Vampire Diaries or The Originals first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The regular guest stars (not recurring) list is usually really long for many television series. Television series creators and executive producers keep starring, guest starring/recurring, and special guest stars listing of their credits separate for a reason. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly why for anyone who's not recurring and is listed under a general guest stars or notable guest stars section, we should only list those who are notable. For example, if Cast A was main cast in Series A and guest stars in Series B as a guest star, that makes them notable. But for those who aren't recurring, we shouldn't be listing everyone under the sun in order to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT. It should be reserved for those are truly notable, for the reason I gave in my example above and a couple other reasons, such as a famous musician. Amaury • 00:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

When a subsection is listed as "Guest starring", some editors a lot more than you think tend to just add anyone who isn't recurring to the "Guest starring" list. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Sections for actors who neither fit under main nor recurring should be clearly labeled as "notable guest stars" or some form of to at least alleviate the issue, and we can then deal with it more efficiently when editors are inclined to add everyone under the sun and point them to the name of the section. Simply "guest stars" opens the door to WP:FANCRUFT. If people want to list every single guest star, they can go to the Wikias. Amaury • 19:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It really happens a lot more than you think with "Guest starring/Guest stars" as a subsection. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The answer's in the title: "special guest star". They're a guest, that happens to be "special". -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A special appearance by, is a special guest, is a special guest star, is a guest. Anything that isn't a main casting is a guest. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally, dividing the cast list into regulars, recurring guests, and other noteworthy guests is good enough for most articles. There shouldn't be any need to have another section for "special" guest stars. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There's always odd cases in the television industry too. In the third season of Hawaii Five-0 Christine Lahti appeared in eight episodes of the season (easily passes the recurring threshold) but is credited as a "special guest star" in every episode that she appeared in. Just because of that I wouldn't move her to a "special guest" section even if the consensus here was that we should use them. So just as others have said a special guest star is still a guest star and could also be recurring cast depending on how many other episodes they appear in any respective season. They should just be listed in an already existing notable guest or recurring section, whichever is appropriate. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with just "Guest starring" (not recurring) subsection is that a lot of editors will add anyone who isn't recurring to the "Guest starring" list. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There should be set criteria for inclusion in the guest list to avoid that, which can be determined by local consensus depending on the series. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor decided to edit war instead of participating in the discussion that I started on talk even when it is WP:STATUSQUO. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted as ignoring the Talk page discussion is clearly edit warring. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Merging Critics' Choice TV Awards with respective year's film awards

A user at Talk:26th Critics' Choice Awards recently proposed a merger for the 11th Critics' Choice Television Awards into the 26th Critics' Choice Awards, pointing out that the two events are really the same ceremony. It seems that in the past, the ceremonies were separate, but this is no longer the case. I would appreciate it if more people could take a look at the issue on the talk page, since a merger would set a standard not just for this year's ceremony, but for past ceremonies as well, and given that the events started separate and merged later, it is unclear how they should be kept now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Firefly Lane § Special guest star vs. guest star

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Firefly Lane § Special guest star vs. guest star. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment is maxed out

Just a note that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment is maxed out by template limits, and is listed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Need help in archiving sections of the page, thanks! Funandtrvl (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I split off old requests to Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment/Request archive. Did that help? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I ended up having to add a link to the quality log, instead of transcluding it on the page, because it's too many transclusions for WP to handle. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of American Idol finalists

Discussion is made at Talk:List of American Idol finalists#Insufficient amount of sources? --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Star Wars spinoffs

Template:Star Wars spinoffs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with editing Adult animated television series in the United States page

Hello everyone! Back in December, I thought it was a good idea to split off a section from the Adult animation page. Then, that page seemed too wordy so I split off content related to the U.S. in a page titled Adult animation in the United States. From there, I decided to split the page yet again to the Adult animated television series in the United States. Perhaps that was too hasty, but that's a whole other discussion. Recently I was looking at the latter page and shaking my head. I'd still like to keep the page, if possible, but it's also overly wordy. That is, admittedly, my fault, and I've made it worse. Anyway, I'd like help with cutting the content down, spinning off parts of the page to appropriate pages, and so on. I would even venture that the whole page itself needs to be redone, but I'm just not sure how to proceed. So, that's why I'm posting about it here. Any suggestions and help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Red link in a (TLC "-related") template

There is a Red link in the template "{{Former TLC Programming}}".
I mentioned it (including some "ideas" for ... what to do about it) here:

Template talk:Former TLC Programming#Red link (in this template) for "The Big Garage".

Any advice? or other comments? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Shōgun (upcoming miniseries)

It appears this series is in development hell, having been scheduled to begin shooting some time ago but run into trouble, but someone inappropriately placed an article on it in the mainspace. I personally think that long-planned and/or cancelled shows and movies, if the sources are there, are more meriting of standalone articles than released shows and movies that there's nothing encyclopedic to write about, but this doesn't appear to be either, and even if it were the former I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority. I considered redirecting it, but can't think of a good target: what do folks here think should be done about it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:TV follows WP:NFF guidance on this – if filming on the TV series has not begun, the article doesn't meet WP:TVSHOW, and should be moved to Draftspace. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Draftify the article, and redirect to Shōgun (novel)#Adaptations. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

TV6 (Malaysia)

TV6 (Malaysia) is a TV channel launching next week. The articl about it has been the subject of a discussion at WP:ANI#TV6 (Malaysia). Main problem is that notability is not established as the article is unreferenced. Any members of this WP willing to try to save it from deletion? Mjroots (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)