Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Reality tv show progression and other tables, MOS and WP:ACCESS

This has been an issue brewing on the Survivor pages over the last few weeks but readily applies across most of the competitive reality show pages.

@Lee Vilenski: since around December 2021 had been looking to make Survivor: Borneo a GA and as part of that, saw the tables needed to be revised to comply with MOS and WP:ACCESS in regards to color use. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force#GA push. It was clear this was a needed change, as most of these tables heavily used the tribe colors heavily and too often to impart information (which should never be done). Lee along with others has since been proceeding to propagate similar changes these changes to other seasons of Survivors. At first these changes were reverted by IPs, but in the past few weeks we have several registered editors complaining these make the tables unusable and other factors, that the colors were fine, and other arguments.

Really, this goes towards the general issue that was discussed previously here about the standardization of progression for competitive reality shows where it was pointed out that most shows in trying to adopt the colors of the show itself were violating the MOS and ACCESS aspects. (using color for info, using non-HTML5 colors, not picking colors that are colorblind friendly, etc.) But I would even add more that with something like Survivor, there is a level of detail that may be almost to the point of trivality for WP. Yes, constestant lists and elimination orders make sense, but considering how the show is summarized in RSes, voting tables are almost inappropriate. This is an additional issue atop the color and format problems.

Basically, I think we need to readdress not only the color and standardization of these tables (on a per-series basis) but making sure that we're not running effectively fan wikis for these shows. --Masem (t) 00:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nearly all of the reality TV show pages fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and usually also MOS:ACCESS/MOS:COLOR). That's been clear for years. But it also tends to operate as a walled garden of editors who will cling to their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS no matter what the wider guidelines and policies actually say. I doubt that will change until somebody goes to the Village Pump and gets the wider Wikipedia community to weigh in (probably in an WP:RfC). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I am familiar with this dynamic, as the TV stations field has personified this. The last three years of work in TVS has been a crash course in learning about the MOS (SMALLFONT, accessibility, scopes, etc. — this was the project that had one of the most inane MOS-related RfCs ever), and that's why I raised the topic in the Borneo GA review. It's become my practice that I review pages for accessibility as well at GA, and I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done around the encyclopedia to foster a culture of accessibility. I'll also note that the exchanges I've had in the GAN environment have been incredibly productive and have led to major leaps in page standard that then get propagated to other pages.

WP:TV is the appropriate first field wider than the Survivor editors, but even though we are one of the largest WikiProjects by activity and content covered, it's also worth it to send things like this one degree of separation beyond where editors with different opinions and specialties can weigh in. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I will add there appears to be some meatpuppetry now involved as there is a reddit thread complaining about this. [1]. --Masem (t) 01:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have just reviewed Survivor: Cook Islands for GA and I felt we made good progress at that article with table changes, removing one of them altogether and cutting back on the colour usage in the others. However, I see that there has been edit warring at the article since the review passed and many of those changes have now been reverted, which is very concerning. The comments left at Lee Vilenski's talk page (User talk:Lee Vilenski/Archives/2022/May#Please stop ruining the Survivor pages) are quite telling. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

The commented at the Reddit thread towards Lee and other editors working towards MOS complaince is also very telling. Its a strong indication this is heavy on fan cruft though I recognize there's a balance of covering the show as has been summarized by RSes (which it has been). --Masem (t) 13:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

How can that page stay at a GA level if the GA changes were reverted? Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolultely correct – if the reality TV show editors revert the changes need to achieve WP:GA status, then the WP:GA status needs to be immediately revoked (I guess a "delisting" procedure would need to be launched?). But the reality TV editors should not be "rewarded" with GA articles that are in fact not GA. There are already enough problems with the WP:GA process IMO – we don't need to add to that by allowing the reality TV show editors to pull fast ones like this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, the people wanting the old style tables don't care about the article quality. I do. The fix isn't "well, if you don't want to use correct tables, you can't have a GA", it's "these articles need to meet the MOS". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the voting table, I'm noticing that the "rows" are actually the columns. I'm wondering if screen readers can even read this correctly or if they read this as "day 3 6 8 11 14 ...". Gonnym (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

These charts should all be deleted. They're inaccessible, mobile and screen reader torture, and just plain terrible information communication. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

note - I'm going to try and leave this discussion alone as much as possible, as I think I've made my stance clear (i.e that we should follow the MOS). However, the above discussion happened when I attempted to fix articles for promoting Survivor:The Australian Outback to GA, with a view to update, fix and eventually promote all articles in this field. Borneo was already a GA, but clearly shouldn't have been with the poor table formations, but it did pass almost 10 years ago. My thoughts are that "fans" of these shows (and this includes all reality TV shows, I previously attempted to do work with The Amazing Race) intentionally don't go with the MOS, because it makes the tables easier for quick reference for what they want to do with them - potentially fanworks, what if scenarios, polls and the like. The article in question (and all of the articles) looked like: this previously, which I honestly do not understand how anyone can believe is an encyclopaedic article. The MOS corrections on two tables are realistically meeting people halfway, but I've been treated to personal attacks and even one death threat. If this went to an RfC, ignoring meatpuppets, I know the answer would be just to follow the MOS, but maybe that might be the next step. I'm unlikely to respond here, as I'll just envoke more issues, but drop me a nice talk page message and I'll respond. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with what was previously said. There is a real issue with reality TV series pages which tend to ignore the MoS quite a lot, but as IJBall noted, the editors in that subject make it hard to fix anything. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I was one of the users who tried to implement these changes across subsequent seasons, and all I got for my effort (besides most of them being reverted), was a warning template slapped on my talk page for “disruptive editing”. I did not get into an edit war on any of the articles beyond a one-time reversion; I figured an administrator could address the repeated subsequent reversions. Personally, I like the look of the new voting table, as well as the contestants table, although in the case of the latter, I do agree that tribe colors could be used since the tribe name is also shown, but perhaps with more muted shades as has been recommended by other users. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is this even being brought up again? There was an RfC about this less than a year ago! Just cite that and revert editors if they are subverting the MOS. I do not like this us vs. reality show editors mentality. Please remember to assume good faith and not characterize every editor in a subject as opposed to MOS changes. I think a lot of opposition is because people do not know about the MOS. I made improvements to the accessibility of the contestant table in The Masked Singer (American season 7) in March which did not get reverted by other reality show editors and yesterday I made further improvements. Heartfox (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I did spend a lot of time messaging people to say, hey, there is a MOS, but it's very clear from personal attacks, the messages at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Survivor task force and the various talk pages that both registered users and IPs are aware that these tables don't meet MOS, but feel they are "arbitrary rules". Thanks for linking me to that RfC, I don't usually venture out to TV articles a lot, so I didn't know it had been discussed. This experience has been pretty hostile. I shall have a peruse.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

This now does seem to be a daily fight over all of these articles, and whilst some are actively trying to make a version of the tables that do meet the MOS, the vast majority are just endlessly reverting back to the fancruft versions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

After seeing an edit like this at Survivor 41, which not only continued the MOS:ACCESS violations, but also switched the order of the finalists in the jury vote table so that the vote counts didn't match whose name was associated with it ... another problem going back many years, but was fixed in a separate project with the Survivor tables about a year ago ... and given this was an IP ... I'm just feeling tempted to ask for semi-protection of all 42 season articles of the US version of the show. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It is very frustrating trying to help implement these changes just to have them constantly reverted. Can’t an administrator drop the hammer on some of the editors? Bgsu98 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, I put in a request to have Survivor: Cook Islands protected the other day and was told that there wasn’t enough disruptive activity to justify it. Additionally, Survivor: Borneo has been semi-protected, but that hasn’t stop vandalism as recently as last night. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Related to this, look how wonderfully small the colorful table at Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi 10 was in this reversion. One thing you can't say about this group of editors, they sure know how to keep surprising you. Gonnym (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

So, that is a perfect example. There are (and I've potentially miscounted), 17(!) different colours in that one table alone, three of which aren't explained by the key. Not only is this fancruft of the highest order, it's also completely unreadable. I'd be tempted to put an RfC out there to ban reality television charts from having different colours at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if another RfC is the wrong course of action on this, and if instead somebody should go to ARBCOM, to maybe place a 1RR restriction on all of the reality TV series articles for flagrant violations of the MOS... Basically, what needs to happen is a "Wikipedia-wide body" needs to weigh in on this, and actually do something to rein in the editing and behavior at these articles. But something needs to be done, and I doubt another RfC is going to do it. If somebody knows a current or especially a former member of ARBCOM, it might be worth asking their advice on this issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have already asked the opinion of Barkeep49, but a ping here is suitable given the above comment.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I offered my (private) opinion in regards to your conduct here Lee. I'm reluctant to say anything beyond that precisely because ARBCOM has been invoked and so I feel some obligation to not put myself in a situation where I would need to consider recusal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We should follow MOS and edit warring should be resolved through blocks and/or page protections. No special form of consensus is needed to enforce accessibility rules. I'm sorry that you've experienced a lot of negativity, Lee Vilenski. I can't say I have much respect for people who speak rudely about the volunteers that write the site they rely on so heavily, without ever helping out or learning the reasons for our practices. And I have had much experience with such people myself. — Bilorv (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wire at FAR

I have nominated The Wire 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. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Simpsons episodes

Not sure if this is the right place for this though it might be as good as any other possible pages to talk about.

Recently, there has been IP addresses which keep on changing some info of the Simpsons related articles such as the production code and directors which I usually revert when I see these changes. Hopefully now more of you would be aware of that disruption as time goes by, especially as one IP address range is currently blocked. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Distributor" in infobox

The documentation for Infobox television doesn't say a lot about how the |distributor= parameter should be used, just "the names of the original distribution company or companies". Does that mean at the time the show was produced, or does it mean the first time it was distributed to someone other than the original broadcaster? Does "distribution" mean sales to broadcasters or to the general public via video cassette or DVD? I see lots of articles that appear to list the current distributor, or in the case of shows 50 years old it could be a distributor from 20 years ago, or a present-day company that bought out the distributor of 20 years ago. Could we have some clearer guidance in the infobox documentation?  Dr Greg  talk  18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is easier with theatrical films as the distributor is the company that gets it to the theaters. Original in that case is obviously for the original theatrical release and the infobox displays the name of that company that did that at the time. It should never be changed from that even if the company changes names or sells the rights. For television series and films, the broadcast network replaces the theater and the original distributor should be whatever company gets it to the network. Things shouldn't go in the infobox unless sourced in the article so if this isn't sourced, shouldn't be listed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that's correct – back in the "old days" of television, I always understood "distributor" to mean who (originally) distributed the show into first-run syndication and internationally... But the 'distributor' parameter has become such a major hassle as, for one thing, they generally don't appear in the show's credits, that I would probably support just removing the parameter from {{Infobox television}}. At the least, removal merits a discussion. (And, if such a discussion ever takes place, somebody please ping me!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any connection between copyright owner and distributor? End credits nearly always include a copyright notice.  Dr Greg  talk  19:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Not directly. Disney Enterprises, Inc. is the copyright holder for all Disney intellectual property, for example, and basically that is all it does. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Another IP vandal is hitting the distributor parameters of articles just today. We need to get rid of this parameter once and for all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible hoax?

Rough Crossing (TV series) seems like it may be a hoax. All of the actors, the production company, and everything else associated is a redlink. The only hits I can find are directory listings like IMDb and Wikipedia mirrors. For a show that aired from 1997-2005, you'd think there'd be some trace of it online, a plot synopsis, or info about the actors, but I haven't found a thing to prove that this even existed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't mention a network (and it's pre-streaming) – that's a definite red flag. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

For the entry on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, this was created at precisely 07:22, 10 August 2007. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There are a couple quotes and a review on IMDb, but I strongly suspect they were falsified too as the person who wrote the review has no other edits on the site. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely astounding catch. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going ahead and G3'ing this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

“Evans”, “Black”, “Carter”, and “Alamain” are all surnames from Days of our Lives. Quite an elaborate hoax to include an IMDB entry, with fake reviews, as well! Bgsu98 (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I turned up people in 2009 discussing this as a hoax or a "claimed" public access show... [2] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments needed

I would request everyone here, who specifically work for this wikiproject, to comment at Talk:Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah#Proposed decisions. Regards, Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 05:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Stranger Things, Season 5

I created a draft for Stranger Things (season 5), the final season of the series. Any help in keeping it updated would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove color boxes from Series Overview template

Last year or longer I made a proposal to replace the color boxes for Template:Series Overview by creating a vertical colored thick border between the season/series number and the total episode count. The consensus was against it because it was hard to distinguish. Since then, I tried to create a new rationale on how to standardize color usage in templates, thinking there could be a better way to show color and still be presented well and not like some amateur. the more I tried to create this potential rationale, the more I realized how unnecessary it is for the series overview template. I even go as far as to say that they end up being a distraction when trying to navigate between seasons. And the shorter series are too short that require them. There's no perfect middle ground length of a series where the color boxes are necessary and improve readability/navigation.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This feels like a non-issue. If there's no color= in the template then there's no colours listed. If there's a consensus to remove colour on an article's talk page then it could be removed anyways. If there is a consensus to change the colors so there's not two shades of the same colour next to each other then that can also be changed. Colour in the template is often coordinated with infobox colours. I believe this helps with identification/navigation and letting readers know they are in the right place more than the season number and default light blue background in Template:Infobox television season do. Heartfox (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: I disagree that this is a non-issue. I think this is a real issue, and it's not by circumstances of a few templates but by design. It's a very unprofessional design just by trying to color-code each season/series number while the rest of the rows and columns follow standard coloring. The color boxes are actually a distraction more than an assistance 100% of the time. Look at long-standing series like List of The Simpsons episodes or something more manageable like List of Adventure Time episodes. Let's be honest, they're not as useful in practice, it's just a matter of WP:ILIKEIT.

That's not to say that the series overview can't have any color at all. Just something that fits normal web table standards.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Hearfox. There is no real justification for removing the colors, and there's arguments in favor of keeping them – e.g. "color matching" with the season tables actually makes it easier for at least a segment of our readership who are visual-type learners to follow along from the overview tables to the season tables. I'm also not sure what is meant by "normal web table standards". Finally just because one editor thinks the current presentation looks "unprofessional" does not mean the consensus of editors agrees with that view. Unless someone can show a compelling MOS:ACCESS rationale for why the current "color bars" are "bad" (e.g. for screenreaders), my opinion is that we should keep them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok but there's virtually no other series with 30+ seasons like The Simpsons that also have season articles and as such use corresponding colours. Maybe this discussion is more pertinent at that article's talk page. For almost all articles it is clearly more of a benefit than a distraction. Heartfox (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: Color-matching to the corresponding episode list table has not objectively proven to be helpful. It makes sense to have Episode lists color-coded between seasons especially when there are multiple tables packed closely. It's a visual aid, not a visual distraction. But you don't need to distinguish between seasons in a series overview because there's usually only one series overview template and the Season's number serves as the distinguisher. Trying to color code the seasons in the series overview template is like trying to color-code individual episodes in the episode list template. I don't see it being a benefit for navigation in practice, you would have to prove that it helps the average reader say "Let me look for the season Wikipedia ambiguously defines as khaki".

Tables are databases that use rows and columns with certain ones highlighted as the header to help label the preceding information. By its very nature, the table is supposed to visually explain what each row and table is there. The current table makes two columns under the Cell "Season/series", the first one is empty with just a color and another is just the number of the season. I'm deeply sorry if this offends, but it cannot be unstated: If you truly don't understand that this makes Wikipedia appear unprofessional, then perhaps you need to take a class in database design.

Learning styles are theories and leaning on the myth in this day and age. Regardless, your reason for its inclusion doesn't even correspond to the definition of what people believe visual learning means.

@Heartfox: As I already mentioned in my opening statement, the problem exists in every article that chooses to use this template and use the color boxes. It's either too many seasons to even attempt to identify seasons by color or the number of seasons is low enough to have the number distinguish it on its own. The list of Simpsons episodes was only an example. if future examples are brought up by me, know that there are at least dozens of articles that fit the bill.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Likely my final reply on this – You think it's "unprofessional" looking. Pretty nobody else feels this way. One editor really disliking a consensus doesn't overturn that consensus. And, again – you have not provided any real evidence that this is a "problem" that needs to be "solved". Ignoring the points in favor of the current system doesn't change this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: It's ok if you don't understand why it's unprofessional. It objectively is an unprofessional design for a template to try to distinguish seasons by an arbitrary color in an isolated undefined column. it's not important to me at this moment to be validated by my peers on that. A fact is simply a fact.

But to clarify, I wouldn't be bringing this up if it was optimization for optimization's sake. It is a "problem" that needs to be "solved". The "problem" is that color indicators in the series overview template is a visual distraction, not a visual aid. I'm not saying it's a fun addition that causes no harm. The extra column makes it harder to read the information presented. Because your eyes draw toward the color over written text, it can at times be hard to read the information presented. Anything with +10 Seasons isn't helping. But other times it doesn't provide a real benefit, just an imaginary one. I did have an idea for making alternating background colors for rows similar to template:track listing with the addition of allowing to choose the color of the head and the alternating color range of the seasons. Something proved to help as a visual aid and is beneficial for both smaller series and large series. And MOS:TABLE makes no mention of gradients. So I thought the table can look something like this:

NO LONGER AVAILABLE

It's completely bare-bones. So don't feel limited to the color choices you see there.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Series Overview compromises

In my opinion, the alternating colors and use of different background colors feel like a step in the wrong direction. The existing correspondence between seasons and color allows for visual identification in addition to adding some nicer aesthetics, while adding color in the above manner is purely for aesthetic reasons. And changing the color behind text (especially when using gradients) is probably not a good idea – it will make it harder to ensure all of the text sufficiently contrasts with the background color to meet accessibility standards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Alternating row color is a common design with databases especially when it comes to long tables. It's why excel makes multiple templates based on alternate row colors. As for gradients, they're just an option to throw in. My goal was to show you we can add visual flair without having to rely on bad table design practices. As much as IJBall and Heartfox want to claim it does help with navigational purposes, the reality is that it's just a tradition that some editors like playing around with visuals and removing it will make these tables more straightforward. Hence WP:ILIKEIT.

But color needs to be used carefully and with purpose and easily understood by readers. For a series overview, the average reader will normally use the number since that is what objectively defines the season from the others. Unless for some reason a series out there is going to just be called "Season blue" or "season red", it makes no sense to use a whole empty column cell just for color. I have spoken to a few people outside of Wikipedia who have a profession in database design. They've shared that sometimes you have to sacrifice optimum readability for what the client may want and figure out a compromise. With that said, I have shared the specific problem in hand and there may be a compromise that allows you to use as much color as you like while making it easier to navigate.

Season	Episodes		Originally released
1	12		October 2013
2	12		November 2015
3	12		December 2018
4	12	6	January 2020
		6	February 2022
5	12		June 2022
6	12		March 2023
7	12		December 2023
8	12		December 2049

VS.

Option A (Legend Style)

Season	Episodes	Aired
1	12	October 2013
2	12	November 2015
3	12	December 2018
4	6	January 2020
	6	February 2022
5	12	June 2022
6	12	March 2023
10	12	December 2023
100	12	December 2049

OR

Option B (Bookmark/Tabs style)

Season		Episodes	Aired
	1	12	October 2013
	2	12	November 2015
	3	12	December 2018
	4	6	January 2020
		6	February 2022
	5	12	June 2022
	6	12	March 2023
	10	12	December 2023
	100	12	December 2049

The first option uses Key legend boxes that directly relay to readers the number associated with the color. This gives less room for the average reader to believe the color means something else. The box is also smaller which may theory allow the color to be easier to distinguish. The second option is my personal least favorite, but also the closest to the original design. The season # and empty colored cells no longer have a shared border to separate them, it gives the illusion of a single cell, and as my previous colleague described it, "they look like bookmarks or index sticky notes."Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, it's not that I have an issue with alternating row colors, per se, but rather the fact that those alternating colors can be customized, which could lead to contrast issues between the row colors and the text color. I agree that having a separate column for color is not good formatting – the examples you provided here seem to be a reasonable solution from what I can see at first glance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Of the two examples, I prefer the second, as it's the closest to the current style (and is less "clunky" then the legend boxes). Minor point, the season numbers should not be bolded... If there's consensus for esp. the second example, the next step would be to go to the template talk page and propose this there. It doesn't seem like the second example would be that hard to implement from the current version of the template. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

They should be bolded as row headers. The current template and module code correctly invokes scopes to do this. I also note that every data table of this type should have a caption per MOS:DTAB. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

No – they would need a 'scope=row' header. But the table should be set to plainrowheaders so that they aren't bolded... But, frankly, that may be a problem with the suggested changes: the 'scope=row' header is supposed to go into the first cell in the row – with the suggestions, that would be the cells with the colors. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts on this discussion: whether the design is "professional" or not is irrelevant if it isn't clear, accessible, and useful to readers. sometimes you have to sacrifice optimum readability for what the client may want may be true for database design, but this is not a database, it is a visual chart intended to convey information quickly and help with navigation. Using alternating colours like the original suggestion above is helpful for large data tables when you are trying to follow which information is on which line, etc., but in a (usually) shorter overview table where each row corresponds to a different section you are just being misleading by making it look like there are two or three groupings going on instead of a list of distinct items. With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/article, and if the different colours are too similar then they can be changed to something with better contrast. However, it is important to note that the colours we use in this table are not actually arbitrary and mostly come directly from the promotional material for each season. The different colours are intended by the producers to be associated with different seasons, so you actually aren't far off with the "Season blue" or "season red" comment. As for the two compromise suggestions, I feel like they are both just slightly worse versions of the current style, with the only difference being that the colours are smaller and harder to see (which goes against the whole accessibility thing). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: tables/charts are a form of database. Clear, accessible, and useful to readers is part of being professional, so it is relevant. Creating a professional table is also about making sure there's nothing that hurts navigation/readability. With the current table, I wouldn't say it is "clear", and the "useful" is subjective. This is ok, not everything has to be useful to everyone. But my concern is the way they're implemented makes it harder to navigate between season numbers. Which is what most readers are going to navigate with. The initial alternate row columns was just an example of how to use color.

With the current approach, readers can quickly identify which line in the overview table applies to which season table/article This is in theory. It makes sense that someone who has edited the article repeatedly may find it useful, but I'm having a difficult time defending it for first-time readers who are unfamiliar with the series and its structure. Even more so for first-time readers who see the series overview table for the first time. Especially because it is an awkward design just to reflect color is associated with the season #. And sometimes reprints of the season will change the promotional art and its dominant color too, so it's still highly subjective.

The goal wasn't to make the color smaller but to define them separately from the columns and rows of the table. I'm willing to compromise even more. I made "Option B" have 2px instead of 1% so it can be more visible. I compared the two differences to make sure the difference is significant. As for "Option A", it is using template:legend to make the box. If you disagree that is not accessible, you may have to speak with the ones editing the legend template to make the box larger. I personally like the legend style more though.The formatting is directly used to say "this color = X". As for option B, it is designed to give it less precedence over the season number because objectively, we want readers to use the season number to navigate information, while the color should be designed to compliment the navigation. Otherwise, it could be a form of WP:UNDUE Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

But neither option "define[s] them separately", literally the only difference is the colours are smaller than in the current version. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: At first glance, it may look like the only difference is the color is smaller, but it's all about how information is presented. It can be confusing to give the color its own column considering it is the only thing that is objectively not relevant to the article. By creating an undefined column dedicated to color, the table is trying to say that it is equally relevant to the Season #, release dates, and episode count. Hence why I'm making the claim that it can be undue weight. The table should be designed to help navigate between objective information first (season #, episode #, Airdates), while color should be presented as a visual aid.

Option A doesn't create column or row to present the information. It instead uses the legend box to directly tell the reader "this color is associated with the season #". This is why it's my personal favorite. Option B is my least favorite because the column still technically exists, but the lack of a vertical border between them gives the illusion that they're a single cell instead of a separate cell. The color was made smaller (but not inaccessible) to help not distract from the season #. 20:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

But the current version of the template also does not create a separate column, it has the colour and the number both in the season column just like these two options. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Season is the header but there are still two columns, one for the Season No., and the other for the color that was chosen by Editors. As I mentioned before, color is not vital information in the table, it is supplemental, so it should be altered to not be given the same importance as the other objective information. If we can't move forward with this conversation, maybe it's best you allow others to comment and not focus on denotations. Is there something else you would be willing to discuss? There are other factors such as undue weight that I brought up.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Putting my comments inside a collapsed box doesn't change the fact that all you have done is made the colour column slightly smaller in one option and changed it into a column of little boxes in the other. Either way, it doesn't address any of the original concerns in terms of using the different colours and it is not an improvement over the slightly larger colour column that is currently used. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I think you misunderstood the original concern seeing as I created the thread. The problem is that the way color is implemented is not as useful for navigation for 1st-time readers and makes it harder to navigate using real information presented in the table.

In the image, above you'll see the same table presented before, but now with an example of what it looks like when you actually attempt to navigate it. What should be just going down each row in a single column, the human eye's natural instinct is to focus on the neighboring column on the left because, whether you're color blind or not, it has a different tint/shade than the rest of the table. Basically, it's not comfortable to navigate through if you want to use the season number.

Knowing how much the colors are valued by WP:TV editors, I opted to make a compromise even though I truly believe they don't need to be used to navigate comfortably. The goal of the compromise (created by my colleagues in Excel, converted to CSS by me) is to rely on objective information as the main form of navigation, while still giving the option to navigate using color if one chose to do so. The image above doesn't show Option A's or B's divergent paths, but they have them too. But rather than feeling like your eyes are trailing off to a separate column, they're either embedded together in a single column to keep the diverging path shorter (A), or altered to give the appearance of a single column (B).

And once again, the compromise is also to help make the relationship between color and the rest of the Encyclopedic content clearer to the readers. If color is going to be supplemental for navigation, it should be presented differently from the rest. Otherwise, it's a form of undue weight. Do you care to address that point? I've only mentioned it about three times now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I would much prefer Option B, but if you're after it being a single column, instead of one column for colours and one for the season numbers, I'd like to present the following option, which is visually identical to Option B, but implements the colours using CSS properties for the linked cells rather than using a separate column (i.e. "Season" only spans one column, rather than two).

{{User:Alex 21/sandbox3}} -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I must be missing something, because the distance between the number 4 and the yellow cell in the current version and Option B is exactly the same, you could just as easily draw a little red line on Option B and we would be back to my previous observation, which is that the only difference is the coloured cells are narrower in the new version. I would understand your reasoning if the entire cell that the season number is in was coloured, because then you would be able to read the number and see it surrounded by the colour. But for all of the examples in the image above you have to read the number and then look slightly to the left to see the colour.

@Alex 21: If there are concerns from an accessibility perspective over the way that the colour is created inside the table then I would agree that using CSS on the season column instead of having a separate cell would be appropriate. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: it would be simple if the season numbers weren't bluelinks that will make them inaccessible using the darker colors. The distance is actually greater in Option B, but the goal is to leave less room for drifting to the next column. Option A resolves it differently, option B makes the colors more optional. You're relying on the numbers first, and if you look at the side color, you know it's an active choice to look at them. And because they're no longer defined columns, your eyes wont focus on them as much as before. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

because they're no longer defined columns, your eyes wont focus on them as much as before - I think this is where are confusion is coming from, you think the main difference between the current design and Option B is that the colour is not in a "defined column" anymore. That may be technically true, but for anyone looking at the table who doesn't know that, it will be no different since in both styles it looks like a column of colours. I'm just pointing out that from a visual standpoint, with no knowledge of the technical side (i.e. the people that we are wanting to understand this), the only difference that can be seen between the two is that the column of colours in Option B is narrower. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I think that looks just about what I was intending. Thank you.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

The biggest issue with using CSS is that a case in which a split season has different colours per split would not be able to be implemented. For example, with List of Breaking Bad episodes, Season 5A is green, and 5B is grey. Only one border can be applied to the left of the season number cell using CSS, so given the previous example, Season 5 would have to be one colour, therefore not reflecting the episode table differentiation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 14:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21 maybe this can work:

:::::::#box {
:::::::  width: 50px;
:::::::  height: 50px;
:::::::  background: linear-gradient(to bottom, red 50%, blue 50%);
:::::::}

Gonnym (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: and @Gonnym: We may have to just settle with labeling Split seasons "Season # (part 1/2) or "Season # (pt.1/2)". that might be the easier solution.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at my above transclusion, this is the series overview when presented solely with CSS, instead of a separate HTML column solely for the colours. Split seasons are now supported. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That looks good to me Alex. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: i think it's a fair compromise. The vertical border is still there but for the most part it still advocates less eye-drifting because the column is smaller and not draws too much attention from the rest of the information. I would request bolding the numbers to further assist in navigation.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, no, as per MOS:BOLD. There is already far too much extraneous bolding on Wikipedia. One thing I like about WP:TV is that this WP actually does a decent job at fighting extraneous bolding. And we should absolutely continue to do that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I just read MOS:BOLD, and it doesn't give a clear guideline for tables. i doubt bolding Season # is going to cause a problem with the rest of the articles. Other Wikiprojects also keep bolding to a minimum too, so your preference that WP:TV minimizes too shouldn't be considered a valid reason. You make it sound like its the end of the world if we bold the season numbers. All we would be doing is making Season # into header.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. We're not going to start backsliding on MOS:BOLD because one editor thinks that we should. A lot of the rest of us have put a lot effort into this fight. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I also would oppose season bolding. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I have no qualms with opposing a mild suggestion. But I don't agree that I think we should be "backsliding" On MOS:BOLD. I didn't see anything in the MOS that was against bolding within the table. Especially because tables naturally have headers that auto-bold. I'm going to ask you to be civil. There's no reason to respond in this manner simply because one editor has different ideas to improve Wikipedia.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Series overview compromises: arbitrary break

So, is there agreement and a consensus to implement the changes to the colouring of the series overview, to convert from a separate HTML column to CSS formatting of the season number column? -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like there is agreement from Blue Pumpkin Pie and myself. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see a demo first – the one uppage is not displaying properly for me, I think. Can someone put an example in a sandbox? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to see a side by side example. I've also loosely been following, but the new formatting is WP:ACCESS compliant, yes? Also, I'm dropping a line at the talk page of the template of this discussion, since this is a big formatting change if done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy to provide examples. See below:

Season	Episodes		Originally released
1	12		October 2013
4	18	6	January 2020
		6	February 2022
		6	March 2022
5	12	6	June 2022
		6	July 2022
6	12		March 2023

Season	Episodes		Originally released
1	12		October 2013
4	18	6	January 2020
		6	February 2022
		6	March 2022
5	12	6	June 2022
		6	July 2022
6	12		March 2023

The left example is what we current use with the live version of the template, whereas the right version is the proposed update. In the left/live version, the "Season" header actually spans two columns, of which one column is just coloured cells empty of any text; as opposed to the right/updated version, the "Season" column is entirely one column, with only CSS applied to the cells with the season links. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The one on the right is not displaying correctly for me. It's not showing a colored" box", but is instead showing a barely visible tiny colored "line" in the middle. I don't know how to show this without inserting a screenshot (can you do this on Talk pages now?...). Anyway, until this is fixed, I can't support a change right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, that's fair given the issues, that's why I proposed it here first to see if it needed debugging. Could you take a screenshot and upload it to a general image upload site (like Pasteboard.co)? -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Could be a browser issue? Works fine for me on chrome. @Favre1fan93: I believe this change would be better for WP:ACCESS since the current approach has a whole column solely for visual purposes that a screen reader would still need to read as if it was an actual data column. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I do have to comment that this new proposal also doesn't appear on mobile. I don't see any colors in that second table and instead the numbers are off center (slightly more to the left). ETA: pasteboard link to a screenshot from mobile ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 07:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for that! This gives me something to work while while I debug it and view the test cases through mobile. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21: This is what I am seeing: pasteboard link. FTR, I am using Firefox as my primary browser. I haven't checked other browsers, but it shouldn't matter: Firefox is a major browser, and if it doesn't work on Firefox, or on mobile, the proposal shouldn't be adopted until it works everywhere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware; again, that's why I proposed it here first to see if it needed debugging, instead of implementing it directly. Thank you for the screenshot. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the formatting looks correct on the mobile website via Safari, but I'm also having issues on desktop via Firefox. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I should've included that. My mobile browser is Firefox as well. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm on Chrome and the examples are appearing as intending I believe. I know there are bugs appearing for others based on device and browser, so as long as that gets sorted out and we know the appearance will be stable across various browsers, I'm fine with making this change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'll keep everyone updated. A lot going on IRL at the moment, but still debugging it manually whenever I get a chance. -- Alex_21 _TALK 14:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue should now be fixed on Firefox. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, looks to be fixed, based on the samples above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Great. Then, I'll proceed to make the changes, if there's no further disagreements by tomorrow. -- Alex_21 _TALK 14:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, diff -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, generally working for me on Chrome laptop but not on List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) https://ibb.co/mDkGBbS Thanks, Indagate (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, possibly unrelated but 5 list of ... episodes pages entered [[Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded] around time of this change per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=categorymembers&cmtitle=Category%3APages+where+post-expand+include+size+is+exceeded&cmprop=title%7Ctimestamp&cmlimit=500&cmsort=timestamp&cmdir=desc&format=xml, how can we fix please? Indagate (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Pinging Alex as guess missed this, problems at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) and the episodes articles still in live. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; sorry for missing the message, I was away on holiday when you first replied. I'll take a look at the colours not appearing, I have a feeling I know what the issue is.

Also, I don't see how the Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded inclusions were due to the changes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 15:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure if they are related but few pages appeared in category at similar time, maybe the template used more resources after change. Any idea how can fix? Not sure if split is only option, which would be redundant Indagate (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair use image request

Resolved

Anyone able to add a title card or promotional artwork to the infobox at Generation Drag? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Another Believer  Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

More image requests

Unresolved

Anyone able to add a title card or promotional artwork to the infoboxes at Trixie Motel and The Book of Queer? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Christian TV channel categories

Hi, can anyone tell me what's the difference between these categories:

• Category:Christian television
• Category:Christian television stations
• Category:Christian television networks
• Category:Evangelical television networks

It seems that Christian TV channels are categorised in one of these 4 categories; I am not sure if we should have so many, and how to decide which of these categories a given channel should be in? It seems to me that we just need "Christian television stations" and all the channels should be in that category. Kidburla (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kidburla, Christian television is a concept cat. The stations and networks cats should be merged as a child cat of it at Category:Christian television channels (this goes to an issue that led to an RfC and proposal...which nominally never closed, and I should get that fixed). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Eureka! (TV series)

Can anyone find a source confirming the air dates of Eureka! (TV series)? The only reference with a date in the article is IMDb and it has a different year. Gonnym (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Image at Legendary (season 3)

Unresolved

I think the infobox image at Legendary (season 3) should be removed from Wikimedia Commons and uploaded locally under fair use.

Anyone able to help with this? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

FLRC notification for List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock

I have nominated List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

List of PAW Patrol episodes

I don't even know where to start with this- the article has had multiple issues since 2020/2021, including WP:COPYVIO issues. Beyond that, citations 165-210 are not showing up properly whatsoever unless in preview mode while editing (only when editing one section alone), and I have no idea where the problem is stemming from and how/what to fix at all. Any help would be greatly appreciated- but the article needs a massive amount of cleanup done... Magitroopa (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Cites not working looks to be that the page has hit the template limit, which makes sense that the episode lists are also template heavy. --Masem (t) 20:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

...which I'm assuming means a LoE split is likely necessary here? Such as for seasons 1-5 & seasons 6-## (or something similar to that)? Either way, there's still the other problems, so no matter what, a lot of cleanup would be needed on there. Magitroopa (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, remove unnecessary templates like the ones to format dates. --Masem (t) 20:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes – that should not be long enough to trigger the template limit, so remove any unnecessary templates (e.g. from dates, etc.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest removing the episode summaries. They're not useful with their minimal word count, don't conform with MOS:TVPLOT, and are the likely WP:COPYVIO issue. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion at The Cheap Seats (Australian TV series)

An editor has requested for The Cheap Seats (Australian TV series) to be moved to The Cheap Seats. Since you had some involvement with The Cheap Seats (Australian TV series), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Happily888 (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ratings tables

I know it's common for articles to use Template:television episode ratings to display DVR numbers, but I've noticed lately most tables are completely void of this information, making them completely pointless and mostly a waste of space as they just duplicate information found in the episode table. I know sources for expanded DVR numbers have been very limited or non-existent recently, so I'm not sure if that's the reason or they aren't enough interested editors in adding it. I did a sample of a few show from each major cable and broadcast television network to get a better grasp on it. The following are some articles with the number being how many episodes from each season have DVR numbers for them.

Cable

• Better Call Saul (season 6)#Ratings - 0/7
• The Walking Dead (season 11)#Ratings - 1/16
• Snowfall (TV series)#Season 5 - 0/10
• Atlanta (season 3)#Ratings - 0/10
• Super Pumped (TV series)#Ratings - 0/7
• Yellowjackets (TV series)#Ratings - 2/10
• Gaslit (TV series)#Ratings - 0/8
• Power Book II: Ghost#Season 2 - 1/10
• Power Book IV: Force#Reception - 0/10
• Euphoria (American TV series)#Season 2 - 0/10
• Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty#Ratings - 2/10

Network

• Law & Order: Organized Crime#Season 2 - 3/22
• Grand Crew#Ratings - 0/10
• Abbott Elementary#Ratings - 4/13
• List of The Rookie episodes#Season 4 - 2/22
• List of Young Sheldon episodes#Season 5 - 5/22
• FBI: Most Wanted#Season 3 - 3/22
• Walker (TV series)#Season 2 - 7/18
• Superman & Lois#Season 2 - 4/13
• The Great North#Season 2 - 2/22
• List of The Resident episodes#Season 5 - 16/23

It's clear there's more information for broadcast network shows vs. cable, so I can see the value in keeping them for regular network shows, but cable series it's seems to be unnecessary as the tables are mostly just empty displaying repetitive information found elsewhere in the article. And I don't think it's serves much purpose to create entire ratings tables just so we can display the 18-49 number is "0.1", which for 99% of readers won't even know what that means. I'm thinking there should be a threshold and if a certain number of episodes don't have DVR numbers, then the table should be deleted. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we should provide as much DVR info as available even if there is only a few episodes shown because the live + SD number is so irrelevant nowadays and articles tend to understate the true popularity of shows by only presenting L+SD. Unfortunately the trades stopped reporting Live + 7 even though they still get them because they post end-of-TV-season numbers, and only report MP35 after a network does a press release. The DVR rating value can be set to n/a so it shows n/a instead of TBD. Heartfox (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The reason that you don't see sources with Live+7 ratings as much anymore is because shows don't tend to survive when their viewership watches them 7 days later. Shows survive from ad revenue based on those ratings. Most people watching something 7 days later skip the commercials. So, from an encyclopedic standpoint, it becomes an irrelevant figure because it has no bearing on the show's existence. The only reason we include viewership figures in the first place is because is the implicit value it has to a show continuing on, which is all dependent on the network in question. That's why we don't compare shows from different networks. The CW loves to have shows in the 3 million range, which would get it cancelled on CBS or NBC.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Heartfox: But, is there any value in having these tables for series that have zero DVR numbers available? Such as recent seasons of Better Call Saul, Snowfall, or Atlanta (links above)? It's become common practice for certain editors to add these tables automatically and fill them with repetitive information already found in the episode tables and then there's no DVR info, leaving giant unnecessary tables with no new useful information. I feel there should be a threshold that a certain percentage of episodes to have DVR numbers (50% lets say) for a ratings table to be used and these tables should not be added for new shows until we know DVR numbers are actually available for them. I just find these tables to be taking up tons of unnecessary space and are just mostly filled with "n/a" and "tbd"–which is serving no purpose. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

If only a handful of episodes are receiving data, just convert that to prose. No point to a have full table full of empty rows, when you can just create a few sentences covering the info that has been released. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course if the entire table is "TBD" then it should be removed, and I think it could be converted to prose if there is no data for two-thirds or more of the episodes. Wikipedia uses what secondary sources say, and Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline Hollywood all continue to publish TV season rankings which use Live+7, so Wikipedia should also use Live+7 when available. Heartfox (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

You can also hide certain columns according to {{Television episode ratings}}. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind redundant information if it was critical, like how a "Bibliography" section in an author's article might duplicate information from "Career". Historically, 18-49 ratings and DVR ratings were important in whether a show would be renewed for another season or considered a success, but this is increasingly untrue. In the case of Better Call Saul or Young Sheldon (the two shows from your list I'm most familiar with), I cannot imagine either are particularly relevant to the shows' successes, or what network executives would discuss about it. They will be interested in audience and reach, but in other ways (such as streaming service success).

For most modern shows, I think the tables should be removed, as Wikipedia is not a database and it's not contextually important information. For older shows, I don't mind 18-49 numbers and tables/graphs of ratings (it's much easier to read and re-use information in this format than as scattered cells in a large episode list—this should be the first instance of the ratings to be removed). However, it would be much better if we could link to a high-quality article or section that explained 18-49 rating meaning and significance. Nielsen ratings does not currently do that very well. — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't have an issue with including the tables – they typically provide info on 18–49 ratings that isn't included elsewhere and which is generally seen as relevant to advertisers. I think that articles should include the DVR columns when the season starts to encourage people to provide the information if it's available, and if no information can be found after the season ends (i.e., like with Atlanta season 3), the DVR columns should be removed at that point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

AfD Requests for multiple MasterChef Australia Winners

For those familiar with the AfD process, I've submitted AfD requests for many of the articles of the winners of the seasons of MasterChef Australia. I know the consensus in the past has been that, generally speaking, being a winner of a reality show doesn't really qualify as being WP:N or WP:BIO. Some biased editors are trying to sway the consensus towards keep. I'd appreciate any other input. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Block-evading user made mass unsourced changes

The block-evading user 103.54.41.0/24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from Dhaka added incorrect inofrmation to infoboxes of TV channel articles (example 1, example 2). These edits should be reverted presumptively unless they are supported by the article text. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Galaxy High#Requested move 30 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Galaxy High#Requested move 30 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:KQRY-LD#Requested move 31 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:KQRY-LD#Requested move 31 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Template split discussion RealWorld/Road Rule/Challenge

I have proposed splitting up the {{RWRR}} template that is used on The Real World/Road Rules/The Challenge and other related pages. You can find the discussion on the talk page for the template. Posting here to try and get more eyes and opinions on discussion. General "should we split or should we not", along with two option if we do split. Thank you. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Unreported UK viewers

There's currently a discussion at Template talk:Unreported UK viewers about the future use of the template due to the changes that BARB have made to their website. Any comments that could be made about the template, as well as the introduction of a new template, would be very welcome. – DarkGlow • 13:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested split at I Can See Your Voice

There is a requested page split at I Can See Your Voice, with the intention of splitting out the international franchise section that was merged into this article in 2020. Any opinions of WikiProject members are appreciated. Felix QW (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You should actually link to the relevant discussion, which I assume is this: Talk:I Can See Your Voice#Split (2022): Create franchise article. Note that there has been no actual discussion here since it was posted back in March – so this discussion may already be  Stale. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you very much for linking the discussion. The reason I am posting it here is that this had been discussed controversially in 2020, so I assumed it might still be of interest to other people than the proposer. Felix QW (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The Lake Genre

I started a discussion on The Lake talk page suggesting to add drama to genres as it has elements of that. Any input is appreciated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Awards ref template

Thoughts on using template to ref awards at Template talk:Awards ref please Indagate (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery#CBS Nielsen Ratings (2020-2021 TV Season)

Requesting input at this discussion from other experienced television editors. A user has added ratings data for this series, which is a streaming show on Paramount+, based on some broadcast reruns of one (out of five) season from years after the episodes were first released. Though I don't think there have been explicit guidelines against including ratings for reruns (until I recently added some wording to MOS:TVRECEPTION with some support from a couple editors there), it is definitely my experience that we don't do this. It is especially significant that we avoid misleading data for an article like this which has a long history of editors and IPs trying to add negative opinions to the article that don't align with the sources and wider coverage. I have told the editor that they need to prove why this is more noteworthy than any other ratings data for reruns by providing sources for context and commentary, but they have ignored me and continue to add the information. Any help in handling this situation would be most appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

TV Episode Titles - Episode Guide Title vs On-Screen Episode Title

What are the rules regarding TV episode titles?

I'm wondering because I've noticed that The Ghost Squad has the same episode titles listed in the episode guides on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, Tubi TV, Channel 5 etc and it's original network Channel 4.

Yet on-screen it doesn't show those titles anywhere...

...However they do have different English counties and regions as the on-screen titles.

I'm not sure what to do with the titles on IMDB as they only let you add 1 episode title, and no alternative episode titles...

...However on here, we could keep the episode guide titles, with the on-screen titles on the right next to them.

Eg.

• One of Us - London
• Hardcore - Humberside
• Heroes - West Yorkshire
• The Greater Good - Scottish Borders
• Firewall - Greater Manchester
• Necessary Means - Nottinghamshire
• Colour Blind (Part One) - London
• Colour Blind (Part Two) - London Danstarr69 (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I would say, if there are onscreen titles, you should always go with the onscreen titles in the country of origin. (You always have to option of including titles in other countries using the |AltTitle= parameter...)

However, be careful that you're not confusing a simple "location caption" for an actual episode title. IOW, for this series, "London" may not be meant as an "episode title", but simply as a "location caption" for the episode.

The thing is, most TV series, especially over the last few decades, do not have onscreen episode titles. So this is likely to only be an issue with a few TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

As IJBall indicated, I also think this is a case where the onscreen title is just to establish the location and is not the actual title, especially since no other source seems to use the onscreen title. RunningTiger123 (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall @RunningTiger123 with documentary episodes it happens a lot, especially with ones from the BBC, not that I watch many, however I've updated 100s or 1000s on IMDB.

The BBC programme pages will have a title, which doesn't match what appears on-screen.

The differences are usually minor ie using hyphens instead of colons, but sometimes they'll have extra things added like subtitles.

Documentaries are the most annoying things to update, apart from reality shows, because you have to go through an entire episode to get all the credits, as they don't have them listed at the end like scripted shows. Danstarr69 (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show/archive1

An ongoing FAC for any WikiProject members who are interested in reviewing it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a proposal to merge Just Sam with List of American Idol finalists. If you are interestexd, you may join the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

THIS RULE IS COMPLETELY USELESS

Who made this unneccessary thing?

I want to edit some shows about current Distributors but this rule come to my way and blocking me. C'mon people? How can this works? We must be demolish it.

"Only add the original distributor of the show if the show has one, as Infobox television says "The names of the original distribution company or companies." If the show doesn't have a distributor, leave it blank." Extormophie Exolus (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Extormophie Exolus, this is in part because doing otherwise may be too much information for the infobox (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). The rule has been in that template's documentation for years but is being more strictly enforced. You may also wish to see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Any support in removing 'Distributor' parameter?. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Samie. Most of the Time Distributor means currently right holders and needs to be change because of owner or platform changes so we need to edit this parameter with just one sentence. It's not be that much bad. I suggest current distributor and former distributor eras for old tv shows. It's makes jobs easier Extormophie Exolus (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it should just be original, not something that we update continuously for all shows as they move around. I also don't think this needs to be in the infobox at all, which I've stated at the linked discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

"streaming" in the lead sentence for tv shows

Is it necessary/appropriate to label shows as "streaming" in the lead sentence? I strongly feel that is neither necessary or appropriate. We don't label things as "network" or "cable" in the lead. We always list what streaming service it is on in the lead, so the information is there, but putting it in the lead puts way too much emphasis on the fact that it's streaming, and is as if we're treating streaming as being different than just television. What even is a streaming series is not even clear. Is One Day at a Time (2017 TV series), which first 3 seasons were on Netflix before moving to the channel Pop for its final season a streaming show? What about BoJack Horseman which first streamed on Netflix before Comedy Central started to show reruns. What about shows that are first available on a streaming service in one country but airs on cable in another country? It makes no sense to me to list it as such. However, @User:BrickMaster02 apparently disagrees, though I'm not sure why. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there is still a gap between broadcast/linear television and streaming/on demand television in RSes that this can be a key distinction, since it affects both how people view it (batch or weekly) and how viewership can be measured. Obviously, this should only refer to how the show was first released (A cancelled series from NBC dropping to Peacock would still be a broadcast television show). However, I can see in some years that this distinction may no longer be as necessary. --Masem (t) 00:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:Masem Most streaming networks release the episodes weekly now. I'm pretty sure that Netflix is the only one still doing the batch release model. And I'm still not convinced that this at all a significant difference that it has to be in the opening sentence. Also, if it's really that different, shouldn't we be labeling broadcast TV shows that in the lead as well? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There's still other significant differences like viewership aspects. And given that the default for TV right now is "broadcast" with only a small fraction of shows (in all of TV history) being streaming, it still makes sense to only call out streaming. --Masem (t) 01:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this – that there is still a significant difference between "streaming TV series" and TV shows from (broadcast) networks (starting with the number of episodes per season). Further, I can't understand the desire the remove non-incidental information from the lede of TV series articles – the "medium" of delivery is not some "trivial" piece of info. Bottom line: I doubt there is consensus for the widespread removal of "streaming television series" from the ledes of manifold TV series articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that this was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 33#On "streaming television". My opinion in that discussion and still today is that "streaming television series" is not a term that is used very much at all in the real world, and only a few reliable sources still use it. Most people just talk about TV shows that happen to be on streaming services, which is why I prefer to just use television series instead of "streaming television series" in TV leads and then note which streaming service the series is on. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Noting the series is a streaming series is important to distinguish it from non-streaming shows, i.e. those on broadcast television. But, I can also see adamstom97 making a good point on this as well. Historyday01 (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You know what? I'm done with this. I even came to a thought that "streaming" doesn't make sense in the front, as it's still television. Go ahead and change it all you want, I'm no longer going to stop you. I'm not the head of the site. I just wish this whole thing can be put behind us, but seeing how I'm the one who started this, it will always be brought up whenever I mess up. BrickMaster02 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think its important you started this discussion because its something that should be discussed. I would still say its an important distinction between a streaming series and a non-streaming series. But, at certain points, you don't need to say streaming series in the lead. Historyday01 (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to see the previous discussion on the matter. There seemed to pretty clearly be a consensus there that "streaming television show" should be avoided while saying something like "that was released via streaming on Netflix" in the lead sentence is perfectly fine, which I completely agree with. My problem with listing streaming television in the lead is that it suggests that there is inherit and fundamental difference between broadcast and streaming television. However doing it the other way (first suggested by IJBall) doesn't create that distinction and is just noting how it was distributed. I'm going to ping the participants in the previous discussion to see if they would like to weigh in on it again. @User:Masem, @User:Facu-el Millo, @User:Spanneraol, @User:Joeyconnick. I'm also considering making this an RFC, just so that whatever decision we come to carries more weight and an official consensus will be established. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, JDDJS. I am still of the opinion as you are that it's an irrelevant distinction... other than how it is accessed and released, a TV show from a streaming service is the same as one from a traditional network outlet. And one could argue how "broadcast" shows are accessed is quickly collapsing with how streaming ones are. They follow the same conventions, are structured the same way in general, have similar runtimes to broadcast television (barring clear exceptions like, oh, the latest season of Stranger Things LOL).

Maybe it made sense to make a distinction when the US House of Cards first came out on Netflix (we even talk about a show "on Netflix" like we would one "on ABC") as it seemed so different at the time but it's clear the only notable distinction is the release schedule (sometimes: Apple TV+ does a lot of weekly releases) and the delivery method. Otherwise TV is TV is TV. Happy to weigh in on an RFC to that effect. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think "streaming television show" is not sufficiently distinct from "television show" and we should generally avoid the phrase in the first sentence, where we could instead be specifying something about the genre, format or synopsis of the show (without cluttering the first sentence). This is different to web series, which are fundamentally different in nature—in terms of scope, production, budget, filming process, and release method. But we see through the example given of One Day at a Time as it moved to cable, or the converse Black Mirror that moved to streaming (incidentally, two of my favourite TV shows), that the production process does not fundamentally and inherently change in a way different to that of a show moving from one network to another.

It's worth mentioning the network/streaming service in the lead, yes, but "streaming television series" is no longer really a "genre" of TV series, nor a common phrase used in reliable sources (or by laypeople). — Bilorv (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing for production staffs

Would like to ask if sourcing is required (yes I'm fully aware of WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN, but please read on) for the production staffs in Template:Infobox television such as developer, music, executive_producer, producer, and possibly other fields. I'm asking this in the context of Korean drama, in which the broadcasting networks doesn't published the information for music, executive_producer, and producer in the drama's official website, the official website would only published the information of director, writer, and production companies, rarely the information of developer, music, executive_producer, and producer.

However, these information can be found in the drama's end credits of each episodes, however one of the issues is that not all Korean dramas are distributed on notable streaming platform/service such as Netflix and Disney+. And obviously, we can't use piracy websites as a means of sourcing. Hence

1. can Viu, Viki, and IQIYI be used as reliable sources for those aforementioned information?
2. are we allowed to include them without providing citations like with music album/EP's WP:TRACKLIST which doesn't normally requires explict citations unless there is dispute?
3. should WP:INDISCRIMINATE be applied in this instance?

— Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, episode credits count as WP:Primary sources, so if these are listed in a series' credits, they are WP:Verifiable that way. Now additional secondary sourcing is always preferred, but I think a number of us would say if they are in a show's credits that's enough to include them. As for whether inclusion is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I think that's really a question at the {{Infobox television}} level, but as there is even some resistance to removing the |distributor= parameter, I'm pretty sure there would be greater resistance to removing developer, music, and esp. executive_producer, producer, etc. parameters from the IB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

End credits are enough, and it's not indiscriminate. There's no need for references to be online: take a look at the documentation for {{cite episode}}, for instance, to see that reference to the episode itself is sufficient. However, we generally don't require even an explicit citation—like with the plot section not requiring a source, it's taken to be implicit that the end credits verify the production staff information in the infobox. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall @IJBall Understood, thanks you for the reply. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

What about the Debbie Drake show?

Is The Debbie Drake Show notable? She seems to being a notable icon on 1960's American television are these sources good enough [TV: One, Two - TIME] [This 1960s exercise book illustrates everything wrong with our pursuit of fitness - Vox][Jumping Through Hoops: The History of Women Hitting (and Hating) the Gym (vice.com)] [Debbie Drake: America's First Female TV Fitness Guru - LIFE] [DEBBIE DRAKE HAS SURGERY - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)] [Working Out from Home for Women, From Jack Lalanne to Yoga Youtube (jezebel.com)] Dwanyewest (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the better question is – is Debbie Drake herself notable? If Drake is notable, we should start with an article on her, and include content on the The Debbie Drake Show there (basically, as per WP:NOPAGE). If the section on the TV show is robust enough, then that could then be spunoff into its own article... But I'd start with the question: Is Debbie Drake notable? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

IJBall (contribs • talk) The only additional sources I could find were [3] [4] Dwanyewest (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC).

Other sources (on her) likely exist, but you would likely have to look through Newspapers.com, and also look through contemporaneous magazines. It's tough, though, when you're talking about pre-internet subjects. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Women comedians

Members of this project may be interested to know that this month Women in Red is focusing on Comedians, many of whom are associated with TV. Please feel free to join in.--Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Episodes and Emmy acting nominations

This may be a fairly niche topic, but it's something I see every year with the Emmys. The official Emmy nominations list does not mention individual episode submissions for lead and supporting acting categories, unlike most other categories (link). However, the nominees still submit one episode each for consideration, and those submissions are "leaked" and added to various articles as part of the official nomination. So, should the episode submissions be mentioned or omitted? I personally think they should be kept out (except in external links at the main ceremony articles) since they're never officially named with the nominees. Also, the overall series nominees submit specific episodes but we never mention those, so I think it is reasonable to discourage acting submissions as well. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If the award (or nomination itself), from the Emmys, does not mention a specific episode, then we should not either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree we generally shouldn't include this, but I think it could be justified if there is a reliable source supporting it and there is commentary on why that episode was selected (and it's a good, notable reason). - adamstom97 (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I was probably thinking specifically of 'Awards and nominations' tables, where this info should definitely be omitted. In terms of WP:BLP article prose, you are probably correct however, as there might be some instances where it might be WP:DUE to mention the specific episode info, if justifiably sourced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. A big part of my concern is that people generally use the Emmys database or a source directly taken from an Emmys press release as their source in awards tables, so the episode info is unsourced. I can't speak to prose, but that is likely much less common. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Article title

• 2022-23 United States network television schedule (afternoon)
• 2022–23 United States network television schedule (afternoon)

The first has content, but is at the wrong name. The second is the correct title, but is currently a redirect to the first. I'm not sure if a move is the right way to fix this, or if there has been cut/pasting involved also. Can someone look further into this? MB 14:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Should be moved to the second title. If you’re not a Page mover, put in a request at WP:RM/T for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Episode article notability

I had a brief discussion with DonIago over at Talk:Family Guy about how every episode of shows such as The Simpsons, South Park, and Futurama have individual articles, while Family Guy does not. Long story short, I'd like to ask about which episode articles from these four shows (and maybe more, if I'm missing any that could be important for the purpose of this discussion) should remain, and which ones should be redirected/deleted. I could be bold and do it all myself, but as someone with only a surface-level knowledge of these shows, I wouldn't at all know where to start. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

In the broad strokes I'd say any episode article that doesn't sufficiently establish why that particular episode is notable (I'm not sure whether there's a more specific guideline than WP:GNG) should be redirected. Just because a series itself may be notable doesn't mean each episode is, as notability is not inherited. That said, there isn't really any way to make a broad assessement rather than handling each episode article on a case-by-case basis. The nice thing about redirects is that they're relatively easy to undo if and when an episode's article is improved (but really, what are the odds that early season episodes of these series are likely to be substantially improved from their current state?). DonIago (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:NTVEP was developed to help give more guidance on what makes a TV episode notable enough for its own article. I agree with DonIago that this would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't find that in my (admittedly somewhat cursory) search because it's an essay rather than a guideline. Thanks for the link! DonIago (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Total DramaRama series finale/ 'last-aired' clarification

Hello all- would appreciate some help/clarification regarding 'last-aired' within Template:Infobox television. Essentially, Total DramaRama has recently aired its season three finale ("3rd season finale"). However, fans appear to believe that this third season finale is the series finale, with most either changing the end date unsourced on Wikipedia, or attempting to use this as a source (some random fan/unverified account getting a direct message from a supposed crew member of the show- very much WP:NOTRS).

Two things:

1. How exactly should this be handled within the infobox with 'last-aired'? I've discussed a bit with administrator Drmies, which can be seen at User talk:Drmies#Total DramaRama. Would appreciate some clarification regarding how/when the end date should be inserted, as the 3rd season finale has aired, but there is no source(s) indicating the show has been cancelled, as well as no source(s) indicating the show has been renewed whatsoever. Maybe I've been doing it wrong all along, but I was of the impression it would remain as 'present' until July 23, 2023, if no sources have emerged (and no renewals/no new episodes have aired) by that time.

2. Simple enough- if possible (maybe I've been looking in the wrong places??), would be greatly appreciated to have help getting source(s) regarding the series has ended. Not sure if there are any out there or not, but any source confirming cancellation/end of the series will easily/quickly end this altogether

Much thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The documentation is very clear to me: In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired. I know Drmies argued for updating the date because the documentation notes This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date, but the "12 months" sentence makes it clear to me that we shouldn't make the implication until time elapses. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I just DON'T see the point of not including a "last date" in the infobox, not at all. And I agree with the wording of the sentence I've quoted--"last aired" simply doesn't mean "it's over". "Present" is actually completely vague. As for the rest of the documentation, sometimes it's worthwhile checking the history of that stuff to see when what was added. Not everything in all these documents has the same weight and history. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

For history, this 2014 discussion seems to have added the "12 months" rule; before that, it appears shows may have perpetually listed as "present" if nothing was announced. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite, I think you should weigh in here also. ;) I'm not sure we have enough here to make a firm consensus. Drmies (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ESPNU Coaches Spotlight

The article ESPNU Coaches Spotlight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, simple as that.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ESPNU Inside the Polls

The article ESPNU Inside the Polls has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, simple as that.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ESPNU Recruiting Insider

The article ESPNU Recruiting Insider has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, simple as that.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Glossary of broadcasting terms

I just discovered this ignored gem that needs a lot of love thanks to my work at GAN. It is quite incomplete and needs more entries. It seems to also be a bit UK-heavy in places (read the definition for "zoom"!!). I'm cross-posting to a few projects to encourage editors to add germane entries. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Episode 39 (Kuruluş: Osman)#Requested move 15 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Episode 39 (Kuruluş: Osman)#Requested move 15 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

An Interesting Question...

Question: Should films released from ad-supported streamers (so called "AVOD's") such as Tubi and Freevee be considered to be "television films" in the same way films from cable channels like Lifetime and Hallmark are? Or should they be considered to be "streaming films" in the same way films released on ad-free services like Netflix are?... Any thoughts on this question? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an example of something released on one of those? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep – the question is prompted by this news: Freevee is literally producing a Christmas movie in the same vein of Christmas TV films that Lifetime and Hallmark already do. Additionally, Tubi has started producing "original films" in the last year that seem (to me) to be closer to "television films" than some of the quasi-theatrical level films that, say, Netflix tends to put out. (Though Netflix has also indulged in some Hallmark Channel-style Christmas movies lately as well.) So, for the purposes of especially WP:FILMOGRAPHYs, I'm wondering if we should consider AVOD-produced films like this to be "television films" or not. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes. Because of all intents and purposes, these services are "equivalent" to a cable channel like Lifetime in that viewers can watch it without paying (discarding the fact Lifetime would come via a cable provider service package) and are then given advertisements during the viewing of said channel around the content. As I'm not very familiar with these, can I turn "on" these channels/streamers and see a scheduled set of programming, or is it "on demand" like a Netflix/Disney+/etc.? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Tubi and Freevee are pretty much true "on demand" services, like Netflix/Prime/Disney+/etc., just "free to anyone" as they run ads (like "regular TV") during all of their offerings. (Which is why I think their original movies should be considered to be "TV movies".) Pluto TV operates a lot more like "cable TV" with "channels" having "set schedules" (Peacock also has some aspects like this), but Pluto TV seems to be the one AVOD service that does not do their own "original programming" right now (I think Paramount leaves that exclusively to Paramount+). Of course, this is also going to get more complicated when all of the services, even Netflix, has an "ad-supported" tier. But Tubi and Freevee will never have "ad-free" tiers, which is what's relevant in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I would still lean towards saying films on Tubi etc should be considered television films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliability guideline or source list?

Does this WikiProject have a page that discusses the reliability of sources -- something like this, from the video games WP? Even a short list would be helpful to those of us not familiar with all the websites that get cited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: WP:TVRS. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It would be great if that could be expanded, as there are thousands more sites one runs into, but that's very helpful as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's missing a few, stuff like Broadcasting & Cable (which may be under another name now), Ad Week, etc... What's really unfortunate is the lack of British RS's for television. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that we have the near-full archive of Electronic Media/TelevisionWeek in the Internet Archive, that belongs there too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Nickelodeon article reverts

Can someone look at the Nickelodeon edits/reverts that are going on? Related to this first revert, and the most recent revert. And this talk page discussion.

Initially user @Magical Golden Whip: reverted the content saying it was not appropriate to add while a discussion was going on on the talk page of another article (Dan Schneider article). User @Jpcase: added the content back in, saying that discussions on a seperate article were not reason to revert edits on the Nickelodeon article. Anyway, that is why the discussion on the Nickelodeon talk page references a copy paste from another article's talk page discussion.

If anyone wants to take a look we could use another set of eyes. Thanks. Anybar (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

If this is already covered at Dan Schneider, why does it need to be covered at the Nickelodeon article in this way? It looks to me to be a massive WP:BLP violation. I believe Magical Golden Whip was right to revert. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be covered at the Nickelodeon article because direct accusations have been made against Nickelodeon as a network. The accusations are not only against Schneider. And the accusations against Nickelodeon have received significant news coverage from numerous high-quality sources. --Jpcase (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion at Talk:Nickelodeon#Dan Schneider accusation's here. We don't need it in two places. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new CSD

This is a notice that there is a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion for formerly untitled/upcoming media at WT:CSD § Formerly untitled/upcoming media, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We haven't gotten much feedback on this, so I'd appreciate it if more editors would weigh in. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Saved by the Bell Merger

I have proposed merging Saved by the Bell: Wedding in Las Vegas into the article for Saved by the Bell: The College Years. See merger proposal here. At present, we are two for, one against. That's a majority, but is it enough of a consensus to proceed w/ the merger after the week has elapsed? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm a participant in that discussion, but my advice is that it is better if we wait to see if we can get more response than just 3 editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Article with Non-Standard Title Disambiguation Needs Cleanup

On Sept. 2, Zvig47 moved the article Entergalatic from Entergalactic (TV series) to the non-standard Entergalactic (TV special), due to a change in formatting for the Netflix show. As "(TV special)" is non-standard disambiguation under WP:NCTV, it would seem like the best course of action would be to move this to Entergalactic (film), as this is now planned to be just a one-off "special" release, akin to a "TV film". Any objections to this? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on WP:NCTV, I believe Entergalactic (film) would be more appropriate. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't "TV special" be a disambiguation though? It's a common term used to describe content and one that may be more descriptive to what the content is than "film". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It is considered non-standard, and thus should be avoided – same with "TV pilot". With "TV specials", especially, "(film)" (treating them as essentially "TV films") should be used if at all possible. And this is aside from the issue of whether a streaming service like Netflix, without "regularly scheduled" programming, is even capable of having a "TV special" as it is traditionally understood. In this case, "(film)" really should be used. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Tv special is the best way to describe this. For instance, Werewolf by Night (TV special) has the same disambiguation. It does not meet the standards for a film or tv film. It’s going to be the length of a tv episode and there will only be one. It has been described by Netflix themselves as a special. Zvig47 (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

No – even short films are disambiguated with "(film)". Thus, anything that is a "standalone" scripted TV program should be disambigauted the same way. Please note that WP:NCTV makes no mention (and therefore makes no allowance) for "(TV special)" as disambiguation. Any article that is currently using "(TV special)" as disambig. is incorrect, and that goes double for any "new" articles on TV programs that are yet to debut. And, again, that goes triple for any of the streamers, where the term "TV special" is actually a completely meaningless term, as they don't even have regular TV schedules. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: I wanted to make one response to you from what you responded to me above and this. I think this need to be reexamined. "TV special" is about the content type, not any sort of programming schedule, so be it on a linear channel or streaming it shouldn't matter. As I said in my original comment, "TV special" is a common term for such content, and we have an article for it (Television special) as well as categories (Category:Television specials). Especially if reliable sourcing consistency calls a program a "special", using "film" to disambiguate it (if needed) feels incorrect. Has NCTV had past discussions forming a consensus to exclude such as disambiguation? Just because it currently doesn't exist, doesn't mean I think we should't revisit this option. Same with looking at "TV pilot". I know of both Aquaman (TV pilot) and Wonder Woman (2011 TV pilot), which you're saying shouldn't be titled such, even though that's pretty descriptive to what they are. What should these be titled to? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The short answer is this – at NCTV, there is not support for special disambiguation "carve-outs" like this, and at best a WP:RfC will result in "no consensus" if not out right defeat for either "(TV special)" or "(TV pilot)"; but at WP:RM, some of these non-standard disambiguations have survived. I think the main concern of those of us at NCTV, is that these non-standard disambiguation carve-outs not proliferate, and we get a bunch of unnecessary disambiguators (which just adds complexity and confusion). Also, remember – Redirects are cheap: none of us care if there are redirects at, for example, Entergalactic (TV special) – but the article itself should be at Entergalactic (film). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Special" is marketing speak. The format, which is what we base naming on, is likely a (film) and not (TV series) or (TV program), but I really dread all this speculative discussion for something that hasn't aired or been reviewed yet. -- Netoholic @ 00:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the other option for these, both TV specials and TV pilots, would be to disambiguate with "(TV program)" (over "(film)"). I would personally have no objection if this ends up being the consensus solution, as "(TV program)" is already covered under NCTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation should be based on reliable sources. If the content is sourced as a special, then it's a special. NCTV is not a policy, merely a guideline; there are standards, but zero concrete rules. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, article titling is not based on WP:RSs, as has always been policy here. For example, our article titles usually follow our own capitalization rules, not necessarily what sources do. And, yes, NCTV is a guideline, which means it should be followed unless there is a very good reason not to. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, gramatical and capitalization rules that are already based on existing language rules that can be sourced. Nevertheless, NCTV remains a guideline, which means that there is no such thing as cannot's or must not's when it comes to titling and disambiguation. If an article is at a non-NCTV specified disambiguation and there has been a clear consensus to keep it there, then it should not be moved away without good reason. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That has to do with preexisting RM results, not "new" articles that are at the wrong disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

You still shouldn't call it what it isn't though. It isn't a film so shouldn't be called one. "TV program" is generic enough to cover most things that aren't films or TV episodes or TV series. Or use natural disambiguation as opposed to parenthetical and use the stated sourced title if it is unique to Wikipedia. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, we would use natural disambiguation whenever possible. This is about when parenthetical disambiguation is necessary. The system needs to be as simple as possible. The interest of NCTV is to prevent situations where we have a dozen different disambiguation choices – the disambig. system needs to be as simple as possible. I agree that "TV program" is probably a good alternative to "film" in some of these cases, and it might be worthwhile to have that conversation now. But we don't want a dozen different disambigators in the system. Again, WP:NCFILM is lucky that they have fewer scenarios to worry about. But I can tell you there is not general support for using "TV special" or "TV pilot", and controversial disambiguators are a bad idea. Especially in a case like this where "TV special" is a meaningless term in regards to Netflix and Disney+ shows. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"TV special" is a meaningless term in regards to Netflix and Disney+ shows. That's not true in any sense. The disambiguation is in regards to the content, not how or where it's presented. Thus, something on a streaming service that is in the vein of your CBS Holiday TV special can be called a "TV special". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Favre is correct here. If "TV special" was meaningless in regards to an online streaming series, then "TV series" as a disambiguation would be just as meaningless. For example, The Sandman (TV series) is disambiguated as "TV series", and described as "an American fantasy drama television series". It doesn't matter if it's not on an actual TV set; it's a TV series regardless, and thus the same definition applies to a TV special. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Right. So then it feels correct, if sourced as such, "TV special" is a perfectly acceptable disambiguation option to such content should it need the dab. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Just because a guideline doesn't mention (TV special) and (TV pilot) doesn't mean they're prohibited. Does it say Any other disambiguation is correct and should not be used.? If not, this doesn't violate any guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that "non-standard" means it should be avoided and used sparingly (it at all). Again, disambiguation should be simple so that even occasional users of Wikipedia can find articles easily – that's the whole point. Very casual TV viewers and Wiki readers won't even know what a "TV special" is. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"TV special" is fairly common terminology so disagree that casuals wouldn't recognise it in an article title, be more confusing for them to see something like Werewolf by Night called a film. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what redirects are for. And we've moved on to discussing whether "(TV program)" is the best choice in these cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Redirects are good, but the article would still have (film) at the top which could be confusing. (TV program) was proposed by one person, not really moved on to discussing that, probably preferable to (film) but not ideal. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we should be adding (TV special) to the guideline if that seems to be the main thing stopping people from using it, because a (TV special) is different from a TV movie and (film) isn't necessarily the best way to disambiguate them. Sounds like this is a case of the Wiki bureaucracy getting in the way of common sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No, there is opposition to that in NCTV, for very good reason. It's rather the opposite – disambiguation schemes should be simple (e.g. everything falls under "TV program", really), and we shouldn't create new disambiguators for frankly rare-to-very rare cases (the more disambiguators there are, the worse it is for casual and non-expert readers – for example, there's a reason we got rid of "disambiguation by TV network"). The standard disambiguation can then be supplemented with redirects for navigation, which is why redirects exist in the first place (e.g. if you think it's a "TV special", just add a redirect with that as disambiguation). People are vastly overthinking this.

But it's the same old problem – people will do what they want to do without much though about what the best underlying titling scheme should be. So I'm giving up on this, as no one is interested in coming up with an efficient, rational naming system for WP:TV (especially, in this case of these two streaming programs, which aren't even "TV specials" in any normal, historical sense of the term) – they'd rather just do whatever they want. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

there is opposition to that in NCTV Where is this in past discussions? we shouldn't create new disambiguators for frankly rare-to-very rare cases Dab'ed articles in the subcategories Category:Television specials would disagree, as I've seen a number just on a cursory look that already use "TV special" or others that probably could. no one is interested in coming up with an efficient, rational naming system for WP:TV it appears from this discussion that editors are feeling "TV special" should be a valid option given it's a pretty common term in the industry. And if we need something more formal like an RfC, then we should do that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It is common, but because "TV special" is a marketing term which could apply to almost anything, it is meaningless for our disambiguation purposes. TV movies, one-off programs, breaking news coverage, and limited series have all been described as "television specials". Our disambiguation terms should be based simply on the format of the media, which is by far more objective and universally WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Because titles are a limited resource, its unfair to compare it with sorting categories like Category:Television specials. We have categories all kinds of aspects of media (like genre) which likewise are subjective and would often be unhelpful for disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 03:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe "TV special" is a marketing term. Maybe for real-world/news coverage instances, sure. But in fictional instances such as the classic holiday programming, I wouldn't call that marketing. Or also something like the live musical performances NBC and Fox have done. I'd call those "TV specials" too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Favre's question; where are the past discussions that show the opposition to [this] in NCTV? -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Another WP:FL One-Season List of Episodes That Should Be Merged...

In other news... Moonlight (American TV series) is a WP:GA (since 2008) – it was out-of-date in terms of current MOS:TV section ordering, and I just fixed that. But that's not the point of this post... The series ran for just one season of 16-episodes in 2007–08. Despite this, List of Moonlight episodes is another one of these WP:FLs (also since 2008) for a one-season TV series. Obviously, the episodes summary table should be merged back to the main article, as per MOS:TVSPLIT, WP:FL or not.

I don't intend to do anything about this at this time. Just making others aware (in case somebody wants to take a stab at a merge). I'm guessing the first step would be opening an "official" WP:MERGE discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yup, completely unnecessary split. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Definitely should be merged. I took a look at the page history of List of Moonlight episodes and I noticed that it was split the very next day after the series premiere. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's been merged. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It would have been better to cite this discussion in the edit summaries, but glad it was done. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, merge tags need to be added to both articles' talk pages. I may or may not get to that tonight... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I added the merge tags and nominated the list article for featured list removal. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Degrassi peer review

I've listed the main article for the Degrassi franchise for PR. I want to see how it can be improved for potential FA nomination. See it here. ToQ100gou (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Requesting input on Talk:List of Autopsy: The Last Hours of... episodes

There's a discussion about the type of content that should go into this episode list article that, while diplomatic so far, doesn't seem likely to reach any consensus without additional parties involved. Would anyone care to share an opinion there? Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul taskforce proposal

For the past week or so I've been working on creating a task force specifically for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul related articles and i just now realized I should probably ask here if its a good idea? Personally I think the sheer popularity of both shows is enough to make them deserving of their own task forces but beyond that both shows have an article for every episode, a lot of which could definitly do with some cleaning up/expanding. I think a dedicated task force could help this. Thoughts? Here is what ive done so far: Task Force WIP FishandChipper 🐟🍟 15:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a vested interest in this either way, but please remove the background color. It's an unnecessary addition and an WP:ACCESS issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Episode lists without episode tables

It was a long-ago created list, but I just wanted to remind WP:TV about User:Alex 21/sandbox/No episode table, which is a list of all articles that use {{Episode list}} but not {{Episode table}}; i.e. articles that are still using hardcoded episode table headers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

While I rarely use the list itself, I personally always fix these every time I come across one at an old TV show article... As to the list itself, it would be better if it was updated, say, monthly – I imagine it's the kind of thing that a bot could do. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If I recall, we tried discussing having a bot make these adjustments to swap out hard code for {{Episode table}} but it was felt that couldn't be done accurately. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I mean just having a bot update Alex's list of these articles monthly (e.g. to remove articles from the list that have been corrected since last check). The reason I don't use his list myself is because it quickly gets out of date. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes. I think that could happen then, for sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, a lot of these seem to be on manga/anime pages, so it might be beneficial to drop a note at WP:ANIME about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Are these sources good enough?

I have a question are these sources good enough to either create a Debbie Drake article or The Debbie Drake Show, TV: One, Two - TIME , Fitness guru Jack LaLanne's exercise legacy | CBC News, In the 60s, Men and Women Both Tuned in to Debbie Drake | OrangeBean Indiana, DEBBIE DRAKE HAS SURGERY - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com), Debbie Drake: America's First Female TV Fitness Guru - LIFE, Guest Post: THE PELOTON WIFE AND DEBBIE DRAKE - Physical Culture Study, LIFE - Google Books, Corpsman - Google Books , Working Out from Home for Women, From Jack Lalanne to Yoga Youtube (jezebel.com) Dwanyewest (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Citations in the lead

Am I wrong for understanding sourcing in a lead as being unecessary or redundant when all the information stated therein is already fully and reliably sourced in the body of any given article? Especially if the lead is just one pgraph of a few lines. Are there specific stipulations in the TV MOS, aside from for material that could be contested or be considered controversial, that I might have missed somehow, that state refs should still be included or linked? I was just reverted on a Netflix series article and told that I shouldn't edit based on personal preference, but that wasn't why I removed the ref links at all. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are incorrect about this. WP:LEADCITE does not, and has never, said "do not put cites in the lede". If anything, it implies the opposite in some cases (esp. re: WP:BLPs). What it does say is that there is editor discretion, based on the specifics of the article, as to whether there should be no cites, some cites, or a lot of cites in the lede – some articles arguably don't need cites or referencing in the lede; for other articles, especially for controversial claims, or for info that is likely to be challenged or a target for vandals, cites in the lede is a very good idea. If you are reverted on WP:LEADCITE, and you feel like there should be no cites in the lede, it's incumbent upon you to start a talk page discussion and see if there is consensus for that view. (On my end, I generally oppose removal of citations or referencing from the lede in most cases, unless it's a case of WP:OVERCITE.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't saying I thought WP:LEADCITE says "do not put cites in the lede". And I'm aware of the requirements for BLPs, I did mention some of that in my orig post after all. I just don't understand how having cites in the lead for info that is already sourced in the body isn't redundant when it's not for contentious material or something that always absolutely needs to be sourced. As you said, "some articles arguably don't need cites or referencing in the lede", and that was my line of thinking. Many FAs, TV-based and otherwise, for e.g.1, 2, 3, 4), don't have any cites (well #4 has just one) at all in their leads, and I generally try to edit as close to FA standards as I possibly can, so it's very confusing to me why these cites are so absolutely necessary for the 3-sentence lead of the article I was reverted on. FAs are examples of some of the best ways to write/edit articles on WP, so why was removing them wrong? What value does keeping them add for readers that I'm missing? I randomly ended up on that article so I don't have any particular interest in arguing against the inclusion over there, but I'm here because I want to understand better. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that GA/FL/FA articles are what some editors think are the best examples of Wikipedia articles. A lot of us don't share the particulars. In any case, this idea that cites in the lede is somehow "bad" is one of the biggest misconceptions that pervades Wikipedia editing IMO, and should be pushed back against. Who is to say what is "redundant"? And why shouldn't info from the body of any article be (re)referenced in the lede? And, in my opinion, any information on future events (e.g. when a TV show is going to premiere), should be cited/referenced every time the info is reported, including in the lede. The bottom line is that you removed cites from the lede, and were then reverted – at that point, you have two choices: 1) go to the talk page to argue your point, or 2) drop it. From an editor who thinks cites in lede is, on balance, far more "good" than "bad", Option #2 is probably the better choice here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I also notice that you were reverted on the basis of WP:CITEVAR – that is a whole separate issue, and if you were trying to change an article's established ref style (e.g. date style, or/or author style), consciously or not, that is also a valid basis for reverting. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say cites in the lead is a bad thing though? I asked what value or purpose do they serve being repeated there, obv exceptions aside. You told me if I don't want to question it on the particular page (which I already said isn't necessary because that article is neither here nor there for me) to drop it, but my confusion was sparked by that article over a general editing practice that pertains to all TV-related pages so isn't here the best place for me to ask? Unsure why you mentioned future events, but that Netflix series premiered back in June and was cancelled in August so there's no future anything for it? There sure wasn't anything like that stated in the lead of the article. I didn't try changing any date styles or any of the info included in the refs, except for the accessdate parms in the Development section, which I hyphenated (because it's hyphenated on the cite web template), and iirc I think I switched the order of the date and last/first parameters of those same cites because I thought they'd been mixed up (I've seen all sorts of varieties across WP so I can never be 100% sure). I have no idea what the refs were like for the rest of the article as I only edited that small part. I have no issue with being reverted for that if they were purposely meant to be that way, but I couldn't tell that that was what the editor was referring to from the edit summary. My only query/concern was the cites in the lead thing. Nothing else. Nevertheless, have a good evening. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

If it is reliably sourced in the body, you do not need to cite again in the lede. Adding unnecessary citations to the lede is disruptive. There are cases where you need to specifically cite something in the lede, even if it is in the body, such as very contentious statements and also quotations, but otherwise they are not needed. Edit warring re-adding them is disruptive. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not what WP:LEADCITE says at all, so this "advice" is not true. As I said above, once a removal is reverted, a discussion is required if someone wants to remove them, and not doing that is disruptive. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm unsure if you are not reading the same policy I am. LEDECITE does say that there is a case-by-case basis for requiring citations - what is the reason for requiring additional citations in the lede in this case? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

That is what the discussion would be for. Bottom line: Consensus is what determines whether cites belong in the lede or not, not some editor claiming "If it is reliably sourced in the body, you do not need to cite again in the lede." Which, again, is not what WP:LEADCITE says at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So, given that we are now having a discussion, what are the merits on this article in retaining those cites? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In the specific article mentioned for this discussion, the references aren't harmful, especially since the lead is so small. However, since they are supported in the body of the article, I'd lean toward not featuring them, but again, for this specific instance, it's fine, though none of the material seems contentious enough or questioned to need the extra ref tags. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Cancellations are one of those things I personally would support as being referenced in the lede as well as the body (if you've ever edited an article for a TV series from Nickelodeon or Disney Channel, both of which regularly don't "officially announce" cancellations, you'll know why!), along with supporting always also referencing upcoming premiere dates in the lede as I said above... Original premiere dates? I'm neutral on referencing that in the lede – it's neither "harmful" nor "necessary" IMO. In the case of First Kill (TV series), I'm also neutral on referencing the link to Victoria Schwab's original short story – again, doing that is neither "harmful" nor "necessary". But, again, this discussion should have happened at Talk:First Kill (TV series), and I definitely would have objected to both the edit summary and the hidden note in this edit – that's one editor's opinion, it's not "policy". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:THQ § Formatting troubles

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Formatting troubles. Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, remember when we were talking about how 'Storyboard by' columns are generally mostly extraneous uppage?! – Well a "songs" column for a show like The Ghost and Molly McGee is another example of that. IOW, rather than "helping" the Teahouse questioner, we should be discouraging them from doing this, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall: That's fine and it's a possibility that I did mention in my reply to their TH question. Another TH host did subsequently fix the formatting error, but whether such songs belong in the table is probably something you and the other members of WP:TV should sort out with the OP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

After seeing this discussion, I've gone ahead remove the content myself, including the songs and storyboard artists, as well as updating the formatting to use the correct |NumParts= parameter for accessability. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

But the storyboard artists are in the opening credits. However, I did remove some storyboard credits in episode lists myself, even if in the opening of episodes. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox request for NightGowns

Anyone able to add title card or promotional artwork to the infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"Storyboard artists/animation directors" in episode lists

Hey, folks...

I asked about a year and a half ago if storyboard artists should be included in the Simpsons episode list parameters. The discussion leaned toward no so I got rid of them. In the past little while, they've popped up again on a fairly large number of lists (they're all over List of Futurama episodes, List of The Critic episodes, List of Family Guy episodes, etc.)

While I find these highly pointless and oppose including them (imo: for scripted cartoons like these, the storyboard artist is largely not that important, and they're all buried in the end credits so giving them list placement is WP:UNDUE), I don't feel like removing them from 40+ articles based on a sorta-consensus for one specific instance; someone would be bound to get mad at me. So I'll ask again I suppose. Anyone out there in favor of these? Nohomersryan (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I personally think they can add something, especially if the storyboarder ends up becoming more important in the animation field later, like ND Stevenson or Dana Terrace, who were both storyboarders and later led their own animated series. Otherwise, I think it can be helpful to readers, as it gives more information about who is working on a specific episode. I'm not sure about animation directors, but storyboarding is a big part of the animation process, so I don't really see the harm in including them. That's just my view on them. And looking back at the discussion you linked, perhaps there was a lean toward no, but there also seemed to be a sense it should only be kept on a case-by-case basis, but only optional, added as an additional column to episode tables. That was my understanding of that discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The "harm" is that they "overstuff" episode tables with too many columns. Like infoboxes, the purpose of episode tables is not to squeeze every possible piece of information into them. I would say that storyboard artists should certainly not be included in episode tables, unless they are "front-credited" in the episodes with the writers and directors and even then it should probably be discussed first and a consensus reached. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I know that in Cleopatra in Space (TV series), I think the storyboarders are credited at the beginning of the episode, and I think the same for The Owl House. But, you make a valid point there. I'll definitely think about that when putting together episode lists for other shows or editing existing episode lists. Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that they should be listed if they are particularly relevant or merit an opening credit, like SpongeBob SquarePants or similar other children's shows. For something like Family Guy, the storyboard artist is simply one of numerous animation crew members listed at the end of an episode. We probably wouldn't list things such as the composer, or supervising director, even though in those instances they're actually listed at the start along with the writer/director. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP address who have been adding them is still edit warring and choose to ignore this discussion and last year's discussion. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Report to WP:ANEW. I'd maybe include links to the discussion and the previous one, if an WP:ANEW report is filed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It's my fault really. I should have never let the IP reinstate his edits. The only reason why I let the IP reinstate his edits was because I thought that he was able to show that the changes were either verifiable and that he had independent reasons for making such edits. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 21:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello I'm 69.255.225.138, the guy who edited most primetime shows with the storyboard artists. Sorry I keep doing this with most primetime shows, I know you guys already mention that storyboards are only allowed if they are credited in the title cards or opening sequence. But here is the thing. Why did you remove my storyboard edits for multiple shows (such as The Simpsons, Futurama, Family Guy, American Dad, The Cleveland Show, etc.)? I worked very hard to improve those pages but now since you removed them, the writers and directors (specifically co-directors or co-writers) are a bit of a jumbled mess. I already read the discussions that storyboard artists are only allowed for children's shows (Nick, CN, Disney) but why you are removing the storyboards from almost all adult/primetime shows? If I try to find storyboards for a specific cartoon, they are all mainly children's shows. I know that for primetime shows, they were credited in the credits and only the writer and director were credited in the opening titles, but why you are taking away my hard work on adding the storyboard artists. I promise I will not add composers, overseas studios, supervising directors, etc. because it can overclog the page and it will become unreadable. Not to mention, I will also not add storyboard artists to live action programs, as storyboards are not a thing for live action shows, most live action shows are scripted, then filmed. Most people can only find the storyboard artists on IMDB but the problem with that is that it is always vandalized. Take a look on the SpongeBob episodes "Squirrel Jelly/The String" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8260950/fullcredits/) and "Plankton's Intern/Patrick's Tantrum" ((https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10084374/fullcredits/). Even if the writers and voice actors were correct, the animation department section was totally vandalized. They claim that the crew from The Simpsons Movie and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie have involvement in these episodes but that's is not true! How Rich Moore, Gregg Vanzo, Steven Dean Moore and Lauren MacMullan are involved in these episodes?! They didn't even work on SpongeBob, they worked on The Simpsons (although all the directors I mentioned aside from Steven Dean Moore have already left the show)! But you see, IMDB is not always a reliable source. Another reason why you should add the storyboard artists back for some shows is because some of the storyboard artist would be important later on in the animation industry. For example take Pendleton Ward, J.G. Quintel and Alex Hirsch. Their very first work is that they worked as storyboard artists and writers on The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack. After the show ended, Pendleton created Adventure Time, J.G. created Regular Show and Alex created Gravity Falls, all three shows are critically acclaimed and would later go out as some of the best cartoons of all time. Speaking of Gravity Falls, this is the show that future creators like Matt Braly, Dana Terrace and Shion Takeuchi have worked on. Matt and Dana are storyboard artists and Shion was a writer. After Gravity Falls ended, Matt would later create Amphibia, Dana would later create The Owl House, and Shion would later create Inside Job. There are more examples of this for children's shows such as Adventure Time, where Rebecca Sugar, Skyler Page and Elizabeth Ito first worked on that show before creating Steven Universe, Clarence and City of Ghosts respectively later in their careers. But now let's move on to the elephant in the room: primetime shows. Case in point, it is important to add the writer and director for an episode of a primetime series as they have different writers and directors per episode. But the same applies the storyboard artists, since because it takes over a year to make an episode a show, the writers, storyboard artists and directors change per episode due working on different episodes in the same time. Here are some examples of storyboard artists on primetime shows who would later be important to the animation industry. Dan Povenmire's first animation work was The Simpsons, which he was a character layout artist and storyboard artist for some episodes. But that is the same show that he worked on where he met Jeff "Swampy" Marsh. They became best friends and worked together on Rocko's Modern Life which they worked at the same time as The Simpsons. Speaking of Rocko, this is where SpongeBob creator Stephen Hillenberg got his first animation job as a director, storyboard artist and writer. If Rocko didn't exist, SpongeBob would've never came to be. And people like Stephen Hillenberg, Derek Drymon, Doug Lawrence and Robert Scull would've never worked in animation since this show was their first job for animation. Back to the Simpsons, both Dan and Swampy left The Simpsons by 1997. Dan stayed in Hollywood, but Swampy moved to London for a few years working on British programs such as Bounty Hamster and Postman Pat. Dan would later become a storyboard artist on Hey Arnold! and SpongeBob SquarePants for a few years (for SpongeBob's case, only the second season). Then, Dan started working on a little show called Family Guy, where he was one of the directors of the show. Coincidentally when Family Guy was originally cancelled, Dan briefly returned to The Simpsons during the thirteenth season as storyboard artist before leaving again after the episode "Bart vs. Lisa vs. the Third Grade". He did returned to Family Guy when the show came back in 2005, but he left after 2007 since he co-created a Disney show with Swampy called Phineas and Ferb. Phineas and Ferb was acclaimed for its humor, its stories and its songs. That show technically saved the Disney Channel from being a channel only demoted to sitcoms and their cartoons were getting cancelled. Another example is storyboard artists becoming directors. Steven Dean Moore, Jeffrey Lynch, Dominic Polcino, Ralph Sosa, Susie Dietter, Jim Reardon and Rich Moore were storyboard artists on The Simpsons before becoming full-time directors on the show later through its run. For Futurama's case, this is the first show that storyboard artists like Shawn Murray (specifically the episode "When Aliens Attack"), Aaron Rozenfeld, Tom King, Rodney Clouden, Dave Cunningham and newcomers like Chris Sonnenberg, Miguel Puga and Stuart Livingston worked on. After the original run was cancelled, Shawn moved to Nickelodeon to work on Invader Zim and The Fairly OddParents and also worked on Family Guy and American Dad!, Aaron and Tom both moved to The Fairly OddParents after being laid offed (the entire original crew was laid offed after it was cancelled, so that's why not too many original animation crew members were involved in the revival, also because of budget), Rodney is currently a producer for the upcoming Marvel series Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, and Dave Cunningham would later work on SpongeBob. After the revival was cancelled (although its coming back on Hulu next year), Chris would later show-run Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, Miguel would later become a storyboard artist on The Fairly OddParents and The Loud House and would later show-run its spin-off The Casagrandes, and Stuart also moved to The Loud House but he was also a director and storyboard artist on The Owl House, the same show created by a former Gravity Falls crew member. One more thing to point out is that someone was adding overseas studios. The only show I can think of anyways is both Avatar and Korra. I know its a bit understandable given that Avatar has three different studios throughout its run (such as JM, DR Movie and MOI). For Korra's case although majority of the series is animated by Studio Mir, some season 2 episodes were outsourced by Pierrot (the same studio who did Naruto) and people HATED their animation for being too inconsistent and Mir being the superior studio than Pierrot. Coincidentally, they were fired after season 2. But I already mentioned, someone added the animation studios and the storyboard artists next to each other meaning its over clogging the page. Thankfully, I did the overseas studios for Book 1 but I have yet to do Books 2 and 3. If you want to know which animation did what episode of Avatar or Korra, go to the main page since did mention how many episodes the studios did. Good thing no other cartoons suffered for it (specifically shows that are animated by more than one overseas studio like The Simpsons and King of the Hill). So you see, some storyboard artists would be important to the animation industry, as they later created some of the more acclaimed modern cartoons and if they didn't work on any these shows, most of the newer stuff would've never happened. Can you please restore all of my storyboard edits for most of the shows I mentioned (the shows being The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad!, Futurama, Bob's Burgers (although I only did the first season so far), The Great North and Disenchantment)? I worked so hard on adding those pages, but you are taking it all away! Not to mention some of these artists were later important to the industry. The animation industry is trying to get a new deal animation since they are not being paid enough unlike live action shows. This INCLUDES storyboard artists. Storyboard artists are important to the industry and not just the writers and directors. I mean the same applies to stuff such as editors, cinematographers, effects artists, background artists, character designers, prop designers, etc. I'm not trying to rant that storyboard artists on Wikipedia is bad and I should ignore it, but I'm just proving you guys that storyboard artists (no matter if its credited in the opening or closing credits) are important! Please stop reverting my storyboard edits for most primetime shows in general! I took my time to search for them either from Wikipedia or online and it took a while to do it. Now since you reverted all of my edits, its looks a bit jumbled up. Specifically if the episode has two or three writers or directors, it's going to push words down a bit for example ("Directed by Steven Speilberg & Alan Smithee-Not Real). Can you please first of all restore my storyboard edits for the shows I mentioned? I apologized to all the users who suffered me for putting the edits without explanation. Thank you, have a nice day and SUPPORT STORYBOARD ARTISTS! :) 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR (wall of text!!) – Edit warring is never OK. If you think you are "right", you go to an article's Talk page, and make your case there. If your case is good, other editors will agree with you. If they don't, you drop it, and move on the next thing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I just explained a long explanation about why you should add the storyboard artists back. I wrote actual reasons why they should add it back so I'm sorry it is a little bit too long. I was on the Talk page the entire time. If only you could help shortening it. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Still no consensus to include them as repeatedly said by multiple editors. You are beating a dead horse here. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You are just saying "If the debate died a natural death". But even if this is a long wall of text, it is because this is a big explanation why storyboard artists should be added back on primetime shows. I tried to make a shortened version but Wikipedia didn't let me due to a editing conflict. I was trying to explain to you and your fellow editors that some of the storyboard artists would later important to the industry. I gave out examples that some of those board artists became creators later on. I'm trying to make it as short as it can, but you keep refusing to agree even I explained why. I'm not trying to bother you or your fellow editing friends. I'm a human, not a robot. I apologized for this drama since this week. I'm trying to find ways to add them back but with actual reasons. And I did, but you ignored my explanation since its too long. I'm sorry I keep doing this. Storyboard artists needs justice on Wikipedia (that isn't children's shows). 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Consensus works around here – you can be "right" (as far as you are concerned), and still not convince other editors of that. At this point, the "debate" is over, and you did not prevail. This is true whether you are "right", or not... And it sounds to me like you did not convince other editors of the "correctness" of your position, so you need to drop it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you give me rules and explain different ways to make my explanation shorter and having an actual explanation? I'm not giving up yet. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The "my way or the highway" attitude is not going to work on Wikipedia. — YoungForever^(talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

In the next few minutes, I'm going to write a shorter discussion about why storyboard artists should be added back. I won't be too long this time and I will explain better. When I'm done soon, hopefully you can finally agree with me. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Give me a minute. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Why did you remove my storyboard edits for multiple primetime shows? I worked very hard to improve those pages but now since you removed them, the writers and directors (specifically two or more writers or directors) are a bit of a jumbled mess. I already read the discussions that storyboard artists are only allowed if they were credited in the title card or the opening credits but why you are removing the storyboards from almost all adult/primetime shows? If I try to find storyboards for a specific cartoon, they are all mainly children's shows. I know that for primetime shows, they were credited in the credits and only the writer and director were credited in the opening titles, but why you are taking away my hard work on adding the storyboard artists? Most people can only search the storyboard artists on IMDB but the problem with that is that it is always vandalized. Take a look on the SpongeBob episodes "Squirrel Jelly/The String" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8260950/fullcredits/) and "Plankton's Intern/Patrick's Tantrum" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10084374/fullcredits/). Visit the links to these episodes for proof. Even if the writers and voice actors were correct, the animation department section was totally vandalized since they claim that the crew from The Simpsons Movie and The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie have involvement in these two episodes but that's is not true at all since how Rich Moore, Gregg Vanzo, Steven Dean Moore and Lauren MacMullan are involved in these episodes?! They didn't even work on SpongeBob, they worked on The Simpsons! But as you can see, IMDB is not always a reliable source. Another reason why you should add the storyboard artists back for some shows is because some of the storyboard artists would be important later on in the animation industry. For example, The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack was the first work for Pendleton Ward, J.G. Quintel and Alex Hirsch before creating Adventure Time, Regular Show and Gravity Falls respectively. But now let's move on to the elephant in the room: primetime shows. Case in point, it is important to add the writer and director for an episode of a primetime series as they have different writers and directors per episode. But the same applies the storyboard artists, since because it takes over a year to make an episode a show, the animation crew changes per episode due working on different episodes at the same time. Did you know that Dan Povenmire's first animation work before creating Phineas and Ferb was The Simpsons, which he was a character layout artist and storyboard artist for some episodes? So you see, some storyboard artists would be important to the animation industry, as they later created some of the more new acclaimed cartoons and if they didn't work on some of these shows, most of the newer stuff would've never happened. Can you please restore all of my storyboard edits for these shows (the shows being The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad! (although I only did the first three seasons so far), Futurama, Bob's Burgers (although I only did the first season so far), The Great North and Disenchantment)? I worked so hard on adding those pages, but you are taking it all away! Not to mention some of these artists were later important to the industry. I'm just proving you guys that storyboard artists (no matter if its credited in the opening or closing credits) are important! Can you please stop reverting my storyboard edits for most primetime shows in general? Thank you for reading and hopefully please agree with me? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't generally have a thought about most of this. WP:HARDWORK might be worth looking at here. Also, storyboard credits can still be mentioned on the individual storyboarder's article (if they have one), if such information is sufficiently referenced. It might also be worth looking into working on external wikis dedicated to these shows or dedicated to animated television generally, or starting one? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The only shows that have dedicated wikis that you can find the storyboard artists a bit easily is Wikisimpsons (The Simpsons encyclopedia, which is where I sourced the storyboard credits anyway). But wikis of shows like Futurama, Family Guy, etc. doesn't include all of their animation crew include other than writers or voice actors. That's another reason why you should add the credits back in Wikipedia. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The IP address editor got the storyboard credits from Wikisimpsons which is not even a reliable source. Please see which they said they got them from Wikisimpsons and as well as what they stated above. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

And neither are the wikis of the other shows such as Futurama, Family Guy, etc. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well for those shows, It was sourced from the end credits of the show. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of Wikisimpsons, it is reliable since the encyclopedia includes articles for every character, episode, crew member, etc. All 728 episodes so far has a credits page which if you visit to one of those pages, the actual credits from the episode is shown on whichever you search. For example here's one for "Homer's Enemy" (https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Homer%27s_Enemy/Credits). That's how I sourced the storyboard artists since it will take forever to go to the end credits and find them. Futurama and Family Guy were more easier since those shows didn't have too many episodes unlike The Simpsons. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As YoungForever had stated earlier, Wikia is not a reliable source as it is user-generated. Please see WP:TVFAQ for further information. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikisimpsons isn't part of Wikia, it was founded by Simpsons fans. For the other shows case, I did use the actual credits from the shows to find the storyboard artists (Futurama, Family Guy). 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Either way, both Wikia and Wikisimpsons are unreliable sources per the reasons up above. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right about Wikisimpsons but either way, if you go to the credits of any Simpsons episode, the storyboard artists were indeed correct. Same applies to IMDB even if not all everything is true (except for The Simpsons since I checked all of the crew members and they WERE listed in the credits). For the case of Family Guy, Futurama, etc. I did went to the credits to find them. Although you are right wikisimpsons isn't reliable, you got to admit that storyboard artists were correct, go to the credits for any episode and see for yourself! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

For comparison: the storyboard artists for "Homer's Enemy"

https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Homer%27s_Enemy/Credits (Wikisimpsons, use CTRL F to search storyboard artists)

https://frinkiac.com/img/S08E23/1351432.jpg (from the credits of that particular episode) 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

"But wikis of shows like Futurama, Family Guy, etc. doesn't include all of their animation crew include other than writers or voice actors. That's another reason why you should add the credits back in Wikipedia." I am suggesting perhaps you may find more traction on including this information at those dedicated wikis than here. Perhaps the play here is to add them to the external wikis for Futurama, Family Guy, etc. in the manner that Wikisimpsons does. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, Futurama and Family Guy has a lot of animation crew through it its two runs, the original runs and the revival runs. So maybe you should start restoring the storyboard credits starting Futurama and Family Guy. Then you can do The Simpsons because although Wikisimpsons isn't reliable, I did show you proof that it is the correct credits for the storyboard artists, okay? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You cannot simply tell anyone to restore it because there is no current consensus to add the storyboarders at those articles. Proving that there is reliable primary sourcing for the information does not automatically prove that it must be included. Please see MOS:TVCREW. There is possibly some ability to discuss notable storyboarders who went on to have significant careers as a result of their work on a specific show—if that specific point is discussed by reliable sources, not as a result of your own original research (see: WP:OR)—but there is no current consensus as far as I can tell to create a plain listing. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well if I can't tell anyone else, is it okay that I restore myself? If not, you can discuss about this with your other collaborators. And look the show I used a dedicated wiki was The Simpsons, not Family Guy, Futurama, etc. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You cannot restore it yourself because there is no consensus to add the information. I also feel like my advice here is being misunderstood. Perhaps vainly, I'll rephrase it: if you wish to see the storyboarder information for these animated shows made more easily accessible, perhaps you should go to these other dedicated wikis and add the information there. As in: maybe do what you are trying to do here over at those other wikis that are dedicated to collecting all information about these shows. You will possibly have more luck because their projects have a much different scope from ours. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Although I have no consensus yet, can you please ask your other contributors about the topic and we can have an agreement to put them back? We can work this together. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of other wikis, I'm not allowed to add any crew members on any wiki since first of all I don't a fandom account, and second of all, it will take forever for the case of Family Guy and Futurama. I'm just trying to find away to restore them but everyone keeps refusing me even if I already explained. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Everyone has already explained to not reinstate material towards crew members unless your changes are verifiable enough to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines and that you have independent reasons for making such edits. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

How could I do that? I tried discussions, didn't work. Undoing my changes myself, didn't work. Talking with you guys, didn't work. So how can restore them anyways? Please help me! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly still beating a dead horse. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Calm down. It's not the end of the world. I'm not giving up. We are trying to make an agreement here, including you. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Your clear indication of not giving up shows that you are refusing to accept that there is no consensus to add storyboard credits at all. As explained to you by multiple editors. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

But I just made an consensus for the talk page of List of The Simpsons episodes on adding them back, but I'm nervous that one of you guys is just going to say no again. I actually explained this time. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not what a consensus is. A consensus means a clear agreement between a multitude of editors, not just an explanation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you help me guide what a consensus is? I don't know how to do it anyways. Can you give me the steps? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS for further information. Perhaps it shall help you. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but how could I write a consensus? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You did read all of that, right? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 00:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, there was a lot information. Can you explain in a simple way? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't write a consensus. You present something you wish to be different or changed, editors discuss, and through that consensus is built. For example, in this discussion, consensus is in support of removing storyboard credits in many, if not all, instances for animated series. You shouting things loudly and beating a dead horse doesn't change nor sway the current consensus, seeing as you have not backed up your rationale with policy, guidelines, or past discussions that created a different consensus. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You mean requesting an edit? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perhaps consensus-building is what you're referring to, right? If so, then here it is :

Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument. What follows are suggestions for resolving intractable disputes, along with descriptions of several formal and informal processes that may help. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I made another section since it didn't have space, I didn't post my comment but my question is, how could a do a consensus-building for the article "List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1-20)"? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well can you answer it tomorrow? I'm going to bed. But by tomorrow, I will do a consensus. See you tomorrow! 69.255.225.138 (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm back. Can you help do a consensus for the page "List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1-20)? But I have to do it later due to schoolwork. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I finished my schoolwork. So now, Can you ask me how to do a consensus to a page like for example "List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1-20)"? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No one is going to do a consensus. You clearly do not understand what a consensus is. You cannot do a consensus. Go read what Favre1fan93 said again. Multiple editors have already explained to you what consensus is and how to build a consensus. If you are a minor and do not understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then Wikipedia is not the place for you as competence is required. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

But a consensus is the only way to restore the storyboard artists. The reason why you removed them is because I need a consensus. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Stop saying I beating a dead horse. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm reading about consensus right now. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

You also need to read WP:CIR which also included a bullet point that states the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus. You are clearing not abiding the general consensus which is to not include storyboard artists on episode tables which have already stated by multiple editors. You are dead set to add the storyboard credits regardless of the general consensus. Not accepting a general consensus is not how Wikipedia works here. "My way or the highway" is not how it works on Wikipedia either. As said by multiple editors, if you want to add them, go to Wikias or other external wikis. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I finished reading "Competence is required". Aside from abiding by consensus, I am competent since I'm able to read and write English very well, I have the ability to read sources and assess their reliability, and I have the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies. I also read consensus but I don't know how to abide since you all disagree with me about this topic. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I don't really care what the consensus is at this point, but if the consensus is against your point of view, it might be best to step away and find another topic to focus on. It doesn't matter if you write an in-depth, clear and coherent guideline; what matters is that we follow what the community agrees is best, which is going to leave a few people unhappy but ensures against edit warring (as seems to have happened a bit here). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to step away from this topic yet. I trying to convince to all of these users to add the storyboard artists back. Can I just restore them myself? But I need permission to all of these users before I can do it because if not, it will be reverted and erased. :( 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As said repeatedly, you have no consensus to add storyboard credits on the episode tables. What part of no consensus to add storyboard credits on the episode tables you do not seemed to understand? Begging repeatedly is not going to change other editors' minds. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to beg. It's just I don't know what I can do with a consensus to a page. How can I make an agreement to do that? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The thing about consensus that I don't understand is that how can you add a consensus in a page like for example "The Simpsons (season 1)"? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors said you failed to change the established consensus, you seriously need to move on and focus on something else. If you expect an editor to write an argument to change the established consensus, then you are going to be disappointed because no one is going to do that for you. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Well can you think about starting an agreement with all users about storyboard artists? The agreement has to have some of the users including yourself not just restoring the credits, but also have an explanation on why you added them in the first place. We need to work on this together in order to make a new rule about storyboard artists. I can't do this alone. Cheers. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, begging repeatedly is not going to change other editors' minds. That is exactly what you are doing. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

How can the editors change their minds that isn't begging? 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

As said by multiple editors, you failed to change other editors' minds, you need to drop it and move on. Clinging on to changing other editors' minds is not going to get you anywhere. In fact, your current behavior is considered to be disruptive at this point. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disruptive. I haven't edit too many things since these two days. This will be the last question, but how can change other's editors' minds? And how can I change the established consensus? After you answered them, We are done with this conversation for now. 69.255.225.138 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, you failed to change other editors' minds, you need to drop it and move on. You can't make nor force people to change their minds. That's not how Wikipedia works nor how the real world works. I have already answered them, as I said before, go see Favre1fan93's comment above where he talked about consensus. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

That's it. Goodbye 69.255.225.138 (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I know this convo is probs dead, but I wanted to chime in here: Some shows, like Adventure Time, are storyboard-driven; in that case, the board artists are the 'main' writers, and thus they are listed as the writers on episode/season articles. Other shows, like The Simpsons are script-driven; with these, it is the script writers who are the 'main' writers. As Nohomersryan noted, "For scripted cartoons ... the storyboard artist is largely not that important," and while I might quibble with the use of "not that important", I would agree that it's overkill to include them in episode/season lists. I don't, however, think including them in episode artists is that bad of an idea, unless there is, like, 50 board artists for an episode. Ultimately with those pages, I feel it's best left as a case-by-case discussion topic.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 16:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

MTV Splitsvilla (season 13)

MTV Splitsvilla (season 13) needs some assistance. While the recent IP edits are probably vandalism, reference #2's title contradicts the URLs content. I am confused, any help would be appreciated. Commander Keane (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series) § Ep 1 writer credits

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Quantum Leap (2022 TV series) § Ep 1 writer credits. Editors are needed to weigh in on this. — YoungForever^(talk) 14:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Survivor 41 images at FFD

I have taken the DVD cover and the season-specific logo to the FFD discussion. Your input there are welcome George Ho (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

NFL Slimetime

So, NFL Slimetime premiered its second season a few weeks back. However, due to the article's importance being rated "Low", no one has been able to update it (increasing the episode count and adding the weekly NVP). I've been doing this for nearly a month, and I am tired of being the only contributor. Feel free to reply with any thoughts about this. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Do note that there is WP:NORUSH and it's okay to take a break from certain articles or just update them monthly instead of weekly! Heartfox (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

But, that's the thing. No one else is editing. And if I miss a single week, then the old episode will be replaced with the recent one. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't edit it because I don't think it's a notable enough program for a standalone article. (And because I've pretty much abandoned most professional sports.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Crystal ball for release dates

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:His Dark Materials (TV series). I'm not quite sure, but it looks like there's an editor there who is of the opinion that premiere dates for future seasons, that are reliably sourced, cannot be included in the lead per WP:CRYSTAL. I've responded saying that CRYSTAL would still support these additions, which are common practice for WikiProject Television articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of anime

A few days ago I removed all anime from the various Years in American television articles, for reasons discussed on my talk page. Probably should have made this announcement sooner, but better late than never, I suppose. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

FAR for CSI effect

User:Buidhe has nominated CSI effect for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Big Cartoon DataBase as sourcing

What is the stance of using this site as a source for cartoon information? I don't know where else it's used, but I know it's used widely throughout the SpongeBob SquarePants articles, I believe primarily as a source for episodes' production codes.

As stated on the article here for the website, there have been system issues leading to the site going defunct in 2019, and not having any information beyond then. I'm not exactly sure if WP:USERG applies, as they have a whole list of many sources titled as 'Those who have helped'. My only thinking there is that it may be considered user-generated as the first thing listed is 'Various BCDB Users'. The article here on Wikipedia also states that, "Users are no longer able to contribute to the site due to the issue."

So I'm not quite sure what the stance here is regarding BCDB being used as a source. Should this still be getting used as a source? And if not, should the information being sourced by it be removed or have the citation replaced with 'citation needed'?... Magitroopa (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be OK as an 'External link', a la IMDb and EpGuides, but almost certainly not as an inline source.... OTOH, we seem to let people use Behind the Voice Actors (another "source" that I think is questionable) for Filmography sourcing, so what do I know? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)