Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

RuPaul's Drag Race, season 7 episodes

Sharing a list of recently created entries for Drag Race, season 7 episodes:

• Born Naked (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Glamazonian Airways
• ShakesQueer
• The DESPY Awards
• Conjoined Queens
• Divine Inspiration (RuPaul's Drag Race)
• Prancing Queens
• Hello, Kitty Girls!
• And the Rest Is Drag

Not sure if any qualify for appearance in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, but article improvements are welcome! Thanks ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

As it stands, most of these don't pass WP:NTVEP and should be redirected back to the season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd take offense to indiscriminate redirecting, but welcome comments on individual article talk pages if there are notability concerns. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Favre, these articles need to be redirected. Outside of the lead, the last article consists of two two-line paragraphs. There is no reason why those four sentences cannot exist at RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, then please state your concerns on a case-by-case basis, on respective pages, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does it have to be case-by-case? You created this discussion that would summarize all discussion concerning these episodes. None of the above episodes meet notability standards. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe I'm creating valid stubs, and ask editors to assume good faith instead of trying to squash these immediately. I don't understand the rush, or the resistance to evaluating on a case by case basis. This is not an unreasonable ask. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There's certainly no rush, which is why we have the draftspace to incubate stub articles such as these. No article in the above seems any different to the other, they all merit the same action, hence the centralized discussion. Editors telling you that they're too short isn't not acting in good faith, it's informing you of Wikipedia's article sizing guidelines. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't take issue with editors telling me the stubs are short. Stubs are indeed short by definition. I disagree with the assertion that the articles violate WP:NTVEP because the episodes have received sufficient secondary coverage. Each of these can and should be expanded further, not redirected. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Several sentences is not significant coverage. And yes, they can be expanded further - in the draftspace. That's literally what the draftspace is for. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NTVEP, Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It looks like there are multiple reviews in these articles, from sources like The A.V. Club, Entertainment Weekly, Out, The Guardian and Vulture. To me this shows that standalone articles are appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, almost every episode of every show would be notable based on that alone. Just reviews for its airing does not a notable article make; where is the development, the production, anything relating to the actual episode outside of the articles being mostly just plot? -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also generally worth noting that just because a topic is notable does not necessarily mean it warrants having its own page: WP:PAGEDECIDE. Sure, the episodes are notable pages just on reviews, but are they actually best covered as individual articles? Is the topic of the RPDG Season 7 best served by splitting the episodes into their own articles under the current coverage available? Are these episodes best covered as a group within the season article? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"... but are they actually best covered as individual articles?" Yes! I'm confident these episodes have received significant coverage, and frankly I'm a bit disappointed at the obstacles being placed in front of me as I try to address an obvious content gap, especially form the perspective of LGBT culture and history. Each of these articles can be expanded to include details about production, ratings, and reception, including commentary related to fashion, design inspirations, performance assessments, pop culture references, how the episode fits within the context of the series and Drag Race franchise overall, etc. If you aren't interested in collaborating and improving the entries, fine, but there's no need to kill these just because they are not GA quality from the start. Again, if you assess sourcing for a specific episode and are concerned about notability, then you're welcome to start a discussion on the respective talk page. I'd love to get an episode entry promoted to Good article status, if anyone's interested in collaborating. If so, hit me up! Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Each of these articles can be expanded Fantastic, that's exactly what the draftspace is for! Do you oppose that? Nobody at all has suggested they be "killed", I'm not sure where you're assuming that bad faith from. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to move these valid entries into the draft space. I'm done going in circles, going back to building the encyclopedia now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Very well. If there's no further objections from other editors, they can be moved into the space designed for expansion and creation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No, draftspace is not for topics that have demonstrated notability. Take a look at WP:DRAFTIFY. Improvements to such topics are made in mainspace (unless TNT level, which this isn't as all the content is usable). I object to moving to draftspace. — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

almost every episode of every show – I've always been skeptical of this argument. I'll use The A.V. Club as an example here since it has more episode reviews than most places. Let's use their reviews from March 23, 2015, around the time of the episodes listed above. There are 7 shows covered as individual episodes: House of Cards, Bloodline, RuPaul's Drag Race, Better Call Saul, Bates Motel, WWE Monday Night RAW, and The Price Is Right (which was a one-off review, but I'll count it anyways). Using The Futon Critic's listings for that day, I count 58 new episodes released, implying that, as a very rough estimate, only about 12% of shows were getting episode-level reviews. That's not "almost every episode".

Regarding PAGEDECIDE: I think there is value in episode-level coverage for two reasons. First, it's very easy for quality to vary between episodes, and that detail would likely disappear at the season level. Second, when television is reviewed episode-by-episode, it would be very hard to combine those reviews into a coherent, WP:NOR-compliant summary of the season. In fact, I'd argue that episodes, not seasons, are the better way to cover reception for shows not released all at once to critics, as most reviews of the "season" (such as those that Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes mostly use to calculate their scores) cover only the first few episodes. I think American Horror Story: Murder House (a GA!) shows this problem pretty well, but it's present in most season articles I read. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It's worth also saying that this is a sample of U.S. shows, which have the highest (international) audiences and most attention. It should not be surprising that many U.S. TV shows that air week-by-week are notable on an episode-by-episode basis. This is very far from all episodes being notable. — Bilorv (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I think for individual episodes, even if you can find two or three reviews, there still must be something fleshed out about the production to reasonably expand these to standalone articles. There are sources that routinely leave reviews (like AV Club) and while we don't necessarily dismiss those as applying to notability, that they are routine requires more than just those to justify the article. (To compare, film articles generally require a production section and do not rely solely on routine reviews from common critics).

Some TV shows get production info every epieose (like Better Call Saul), but when it comes to competitive reality shows, this rarely happens, typically with any production detail speaking to the entire season rather than any specific episode (for example, even with Survivor: Island of the Idols's infamous controversy, it was discussed in sources as a season factor rather than the specific episode). I have a difficult time accepting that these RuPaul Drag Race episodes really are notable individually because there is likely never going to be production info (everything being shot on a stage set) that doesn't apply to the season as a whole, and thus these should all be redirected and/or draftified until they can show reasonable means to expand production on an individual episode. Masem (t) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of focusing on a single episode instead of just assuming these should be mass redirected. If someone wants to propose an individual article to be representative of others, I'd welcome a more thorough assessment and opportunity to put my money where my mouth is in terms of demonstrating notability of a single episode. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I concur that these should be merged to the main RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7) article. The episode summaries and viewership are already there and a couple generic lines on the letter grade one critic gave and a ranking another critic gave are not substantive enough to justify a standalone article. This sort of reception can also be included in the main page; without episode-specific production information, it's routine and not particularly informative. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• I'm not going to reply to the above comment by an editor who I've asked to leave me alone many times. My offers stands: if someone will just pick an episode, I'll roll up my sleeves and do my best to demonstrate notability. What do you have to lose? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  There's probably no issue for you yourself to pick an episode and demonstrate how well you can expand it to go beyond "routine reviews" for the episode. The issue raised is that you are just scraping the GNG (whereas the season clearly passes it), and thus why a standalone article is appropriate rather than containing the info within the main season page. Masem (t) 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Masem I was hoping someone else would select an episode, so I can't be accused of cherry-picking. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh. @Bgsu98: I see you've redirected. Would you be willing to revert for now, and select a single episode for me to work on? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC) I've reverted your redirects, given this ongoing discussion and my offer to focus on a single episode of an editor's choosing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Seems you've selected And the Rest Is Drag. Thanks, I'll get to work! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  Why not work on all of them? Why did one in particular have to be picked? All nine barely scrape GNG. I therefore nominate they all be worked on - does that help? -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

FYI, And the Rest Is Drag is currently up at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And the Rest Is Drag - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Late night television in the United States

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Late_night_television_in_the_United_States#Breadth_of_template, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Spinixster (chat!) 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hoshi no Kinka#Requested move 25 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hoshi no Kinka#Requested move 25 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with the clean-up of subtle vandalism on Asian TV shows coming from an IP range

Vandal(s) coming from an IP range (2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) have been conducting large amounts of subtle vandalism/incorrect information (including changing dates, times, number of episodes, etc.) on a number of television shows originating in Asia. TV shows are not my forte (especially Asian TV shows); however, it would be helpful if someone with this interest/experience could go through the recent edits this range has been making and clean them up. Thanks! (Link to edits from the range: Special:Contributions/2405:4802:1800:0:0:0:0:0/37) Wikipedialuva (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuing Television programmes as a subsection

Were Looking for a WIDER range or views from people about the use of Continuing Television programmes strand in WIKI pages. A smaller discussion has started here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_in_British_television#Continuing_television_programmes but its clear were going to have to get a wider group of people since it may effect more than several hundred articles across several countries. Crazyseiko (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliability of entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six)

There is a request for comment on the reliability of entertainment coverage of the New York Post and its sub-publications Decider and Page Six. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six). — Newslinger talk 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Edited to add Page Six — Newslinger talk 03:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" at AFD

"Charlie Morningstar" and "Vaggie" have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Morningstar and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaggie. Your comments on these AfDs would be appreciated. Historyday01 (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

YouTube clips

Any thoughts on adding promotional clips from studios to articles, like this? Seems suspect to me. @Dhx1. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

See commons:User_talk:Dhx1#Copyright_violation for further discussion and links to precedents. Copyright considerations are best discussed at Commons. If the concern is with promotional material used on Wikipedia (advertising posters, trailers, etc), these videos being CC-BY licensed could be trimmed to remove any overly promotional content such as "Movie now available on Amazon Prime" as a first step. Generally though, these videos may be the only freely licensed video and audio available demonstrating actors voices and acting styles, or settings and costumes and props of various movies and television series, so they add a fair bit of value to an article otherwise devoid of examples of an actor's style. Dhx1 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree with adding trailers to articles (with no context). Also how are these not copyrighted? Mike Allen 14:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I also do not agree with adding trailers to articles with no context. Those added by Dhx1 (talk | contribs), that I have seen, contain advertising at the end, and in my opinion, the trailers themselves only serve to clutter the articles.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:MikeAllen and User:Anita5192. Whether if the video clips are under Creative Commons or in the public domain, they cannot be used per MOS:TRAILER and WP:NOTADVERT. The Film Creator (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be more on board with this if the clips were of a key scene that is widely discussed in the article, for example. Currently if we want to illustrate scenes like that we have to use a screenshot from the show, a clip would be better than that. But it does seem to be opening a can of worms to start including these. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that we often include movie posters and screenshots of key scenes when they are not free, I'd leap at the chance to add a legitimately free trailer or scene. The existence of such a thing also prevents us from using a non-free work in that case under WP:NFCCP#1. If it's legitimately free for our purposes then we can trim overtly advertorial parts of a trailer, extract key scenes and intersperse them at relevant places (where there's analysis of that scene), and even remove brand logos. To some extent all aspects of our articles on television potentially increase the value of a product to corporations, but as long as that is not our intention and reason for inclusion (just a side effect) it doesn't fall afoul of policy. — Bilorv (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with several of the other users here. There is no encyclopedic value to just add movie trailers with no context or commentary. That's what YouTube and social media are for, not Wikipedia. We are not going to provide free advertising for Amazon or any other company. Just adding trailers or movie scenes to discuss "actors voices and acting styles, or settings and costumes and props" also seems to be a violation of OR/SYNTH in my opinion. I have reverted the remaining clips added by Dhx1 until further notice. TNstingray (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

ANTM ShortSummaries suppressed?

Why are short episode summaries for America's Next Top Model suppressed? They appear neither in the List of America's Next Top Model episodes article, nor in individual season articles (like America's Next Top Model season 13 or America's Next Top Model season 11 or America's Next Top Model season 24). -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mikeblas This is due to the moves being performed as part of the RfC on TV season article titles. As mentioned at the relevant Bot Requests thread, cleanup will be performed after these moves are fully completed, which includes updating usages of {{Episode list/sublist}} (in this particular example, from {{Episode list/sublist|America's Next Top Model (season 13)}} to {{Episode list/sublist|America's Next Top Model season 13}}. If you would like to do these updates manually, you are welcome to, else they will be completed automatically imminently. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You can see the full list of updates at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Technical updates. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, what a mess! But, thanks for the explanation! -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

{{Episode list/sublist}} usages should all now be updated and summaries visible again. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Cobra Kai season articles

After the mass change to the titles of the TV season articles - where the parentheses are no longer used with the "season x" part - there have obviously been some side-effects. In the case of the ones for Cobra Kai (see Cobra Kai season 1 for example), the "season x" part is being italicized along with the TV series title. This may also be the case for some other TV series, but I've seen the article title displayed properly for others, where only the series is italicized and the "season x" part isn't. Using {{DISPLAYTITLE}} doesn't resolve things, as far as Cobra Kai goes, so how can this be resolved? MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have solved the issue at Cobra Kai season 1, the same thing happened at The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 1. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

For anyone that has the same issue on other season articles, add |italic_title=no to usages of {{Infobox album}}. This is because {{Infobox album}} is similar to {{Infobox television season}}, in how it also attempts to italicize the article title. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, this is currently my active job for Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Technical updates; I'm using AWB to filter through all articles that use {{Infobox television season}} and contain "Infobox album", and once I have that list, AWB will add the relevant parameter to all articles that still need it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This should now be fixed for all articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

TV show season article titles issues

I want a new discussion for a solution regarding TV show season article titles that are currently have without special characters. Only have space on the title of those articles is not an improvement, it's a nuisance. Having special characters on those titles help with the consistency in some of the TV show titles and having that removed causes an issue. For example, "Chicago P.D. season 2". At the end, that show as a period on "P.D." and having that space does not help. Having special characters would help that. So I want to offer this:

The options are:

Options

No.	Description	Example A	Example B	Example C
1	Parentheses after series name	The Simpsons (season 8)	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10)	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series, season 3)
2	Comma after series name	The Simpsons, season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series), season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series), season 3
3	Colon after series name	The Simpsons: season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series): season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series): season 3
4	Dash after series name	The Simpsons – season 8	Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) – season 10	Dancing with the Stars (South Korean TV series) – season 3

There should a discussion about it to have special characters to have consistency without using space. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The RFC to make this change closed less than a month ago. I personally thought that there were better options than just a space, but rehashing this whole debate again right after the prior discussion closed is not a classy move, in my opinion. And trying to open discussion here after raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) comes across as WP:FORUMSHOPPING. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's gonna have to be an exception because space is not a solution. We need to have a better option than that. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This exact array of options was already considered and discussed at the RFC. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@TenTonParasol: Not by me. Space is not an opinion for TV show season article titles. There should a special character or characters for it for consistency proposes. Space is not the kind of thing to use for TV show season article titles and makes the title layout of it inconsistent. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll tell you why. Because space takes away the consistency of the TV show season articles title and having space affects it. Special characters like the parentheses were there on the season articles because it helps avoid issues like Chicago P.D. (TV series) does. In that show's season articles, the results of it shows Chicago P.D. season 1 without the parentheses. Without that, it would cause some consistency with the title display layout. Parentheses was there in the Chicago P.D. season articles to prevent that issue. Better start rethinking that and set up a new RfC on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"Not by me" is not a valid explanation; I understand you may not like it, but the RFC was open for over two months, and closed with a very clear consensus. Remember: Consensus does not mean unanimity. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not the consensus I chose to accept. Having space is not consistent, compared to special characters. Having something like Chicago P.D. season 1 and such without special characters on it is not very good for the grammar on display title.

I'm going make an argument about it and I'm bringing people in. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Then you're beating a dead horse. Doesn't matter if you choose to accept it - the RFC is closed with a clear and detailed consensus. Don't like it? That's unfortunate, you should have argued that at the RFC. Be careful you don't violate WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOPPING (again, and the latter is a stricy policy). -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not sign up for this. That RfC should've been about having change to different special characters, instead of having space along with it. Just so you know, I never knew about that. I wasn't even aware of it until after the fact. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There were options for having different special characters - they were options 1, 3 and 4 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Follow-up RfC on TV season article titles. The consensus was to not use those, and to use option 2 (a space) instead. It's unfortunate that you did not hear about the RFC, but kindly read the last two dotpoints of Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 2 is a fail. It causing grammar inconsistency on TV show season article titles. That should've been brought up. I'm going to make an argue about it, no matter what it takes. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, this is clearly just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a waste of time. The technical updates can proceed as expected. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Then you bring up the issue about the grammatical inconsistency of having space on TV show season article titles and just find a way to add special characters on it to create better grammatical consistency of the title of each TV show season articles. Use that one for example. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The grammar and formatting of the title Chicago P.D. season 1 is valid and correct. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. There's a period in between P.D. and season. Imagine is another show has a period at the end of the title and season. I thought I should make a case. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Correct, because it's part of the "P.D." part of the title. "Chicago P.D." is the title, "season 1" is the season. This is identical to Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 1, for example. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The period in "P.D." is not a full stop but part of an abbreviation. See U.S. state. Gonnym (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, that shouldn't count. I notice some people agreed that space is not an option. Those special characters on there on those TV show season articles for a reason, no matter what the consensus now says. Sometimes some consensus are not very good on this site and that's one. I thought you should know that. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

And that's your opinion, and now we all know that. Thanks. Core policies still apply to this discussion and RFC, however, and the consensus was determined as clear. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

To me I would go with option 1 as it makes the most sense and would be clear to know what it actually is (but we need to be sure to have a main redirecting back to the main series page if it has one, in case there’s 2 shows of the same name) Hoopstercat (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 is the style that we have moved away from; the RFC closed with a clear consensus, and using a space was the agreed upon format, there is no need to change it again. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I still there should be a special character on it. I agree with Hoopstercat. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Revived UK Gladiators S1 & S2 articles?

If anyone hasn't noticed, and are interested on the recently started BBC’s reboot of Gladiators, there are currently Draft pages for the two first series (the latter series being filmed this summer and airing next spring), that would be pleased if somebody could review them, and best if they would be accepted on the main article space.

They are both full enough of content, in my opinion, to be published, as the main article covering the full show is starting to fill with information.

The drafts:

• Draft:Gladiators (2023 British TV series) series 1
• Draft:Gladiators (2024 British TV series, series 2)

Thanks, 2001:999:701:134F:D0A8:4216:3A37:D1CA (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:TVSPLIT. Not enough to justify splitting off season 1 yet when season 2 has yet to even air. Also your drafts are poorly and incorrectly named. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

We really wouldn't have three articles (the overview article and two seasons) when the first series has just ended. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as there is nothing official information or new episodes for the S2, which although has been confirmed, I also think that there is no need to split the articles.

I added the contenders' scoring -table to the main page for now, so the readers would at least get some info about the flow of the series, but the full infos of each episodes are on the Draft articles, and can be seen visible when the articles themselfs are created.

Maybe when we know some facts for sure about the second series, it would be more optimal to put the pages public!

2001:999:701:134F:E51B:DF47:9AAA:5E5D (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I also think that the Draft for the first series should be renamed like "Gladiators (2024 British TV series) series 1" due its technically being a 2024's show, and to match with the name of the S2's page!

2001:999:701:134F:E51B:DF47:9AAA:5E5D (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I've updated the Draft articles' names to their correct forms, as they were entitled wrong!

Samuelzzzz1 (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Penguin (TV series) § Illogical and inconsistent arguments

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Penguin (TV series) § Illogical and inconsistent arguments. This is a dispute about listing multiple directors in the infobox. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent the nature of the discussion. It is only being argued that the directors are usually listed for limited series and miniseries, not for regular TV series. That is the point here and that is how it has always been done according to the overwhelming majority of the articles I've seen. This is not about open-ended TV series in general, so the attempt to frame the discussion in that context is a ploy constituting misrepresentation and misdirection. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You are posting this comment at multiple talk pages and in so doing are being illogical and inconsistent yourself. Trailblazer's post here is just inviting people to the discussion and adds that the discussion is about listing multiple directors in the infobox. That is not misrepresenting anything. Is your issue with the other discussions about this topic, or do you specifically think that what Trailblazer posted above misrepresented the original discussion? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is inconsistent? Explain. Nicholas0 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It is only being argued that the directors are usually listed for limited series and miniseries, not for regular TV series - Trailblazer didn't say anything about regular TV series in the above post. You have posted the same complaint in multiple discussions but it doesn't apply to all of them. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Early international release

Star Trek: Prodigy (season 2) is expected to be released in most countries on Netflix later this year, but the whole thing has just been surprise dropped on france.tv. This is clearly worth mentioning in the article, but what do we usually do with the lead and episode table in this situation? Should we use the French release date instead of the future US date, or wait for the US details and just make a note of the early French release? If we do use the French release date, should the series overview table include france.tv as the "network"? Any thoughts on this are greatly appreciated. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that we should wait until the US details are released first, and then make a note of the france.tv early release somewhere in the article. But then again, I'm not too certain myself. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Alternatives to writer and director parameters

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox television § Alternatives to writer and director parameters. For a discussion on the possibility of adding a showrunner parameter to television-related infoboxes and limiting the use of writer and director parameters. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

University Challenge 2023–24

Any opinions on whether University Challenge 2023–24 is a list or an article? I'm thinking it might make a nice model featured list. I've seen both article and list classifications for season articles so I'm not sure if there's been a big discussion and consensus about this.

Feedback on the table layouts and accessibility would also be helpful. They are essentially results tables, where fictional shows would have episode summaries. There's some unsourced prose that is easily verifiable to the episodes as is standard practice. — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say its a weird mix of a list and an article... parts are list-like and other parts are article-like, if that makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/University Challenge 2023–24/archive1 where anyone's comments would be helpful. — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Moving franchise articles

After splitting franchise aspects of Dora the Explorer to Dora the Explorer (franchise) from a consensus at its talk page, there was still unclear agreement for how to move the articles even after it was moved. Over at Talk:Rugrats where me and other users were discussing whether to move the series page to Rugrats (1991 TV series) and move the franchise page to that namespace or not, it was said to keep those articles where they are due to Wikipedia:Primarytopic.

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Media franchise, the series page is supposed to move to a new namespace with "((year if needed) TV series)" to make way for the franchise page.

There should be a wider and better consensus for how to deal with franchise pages. Should it be: Series page → Series page (TV series) and Series (franchise) → Series Franchise (namespace)? Or will it be: Series page and Series (franchise)? kpgamingz (rant me) 15:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The answer is going to depend on what is the primary topic. If the original series is then that should stay where it is. If the franchise is then that gets the main name and the series gets the TV disambiguation. If neither is the clear primary topic then they should both get disambiguation and the main name should become a disambig page. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Michele Fitzgerald nominated for deletion

Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Fitzgerald. George Ho (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dare to Love Me (TV series)#Requested move 17 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dare to Love Me (TV series)#Requested move 17 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)