Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/FAQ

Hidden content

Hey, I've hidden some sections and some comments in the article, so please take a look at those. I was thinking that some sort of General tips/Consensus/Dos and donts list should be there to cover some of the more common issues like categorizing, and episode synopsis copy/pasta. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable and unreliable sources

Was thinking of adding a few more of these, but I guess it might make sense to get our ducks in a row. SonoftheBronx is widely used for ratings, but it is a blog. Nickelodeon ratings often come from the comment sections of these sites. On the other hand, without these sites, there would be no ratings info. TV.com is probably another site that is unreliable. I believe that is user-contributed. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tv.com is definitely considered unreliable. --AussieLegend (✉)

I'm trying to get my film sources out of my head and switch to TV mode. Anything that resembles fan sites for shows are unreliable (that needs a clear statement if added because it may not be obvious to most users what is or isn't a fan site), and SpoilerTV.com - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Son of the Bronx

An article for Son of the Bronx has recently been created, which I have expanded regarding its impact with reliable third-party publications. In short, the website has been cited numerous times by TV by the Numbers, The Futon Critic and other news sites acceptable as references for Wikipedia. The site is listed here as "no consensus" for reliability in the FAQ, and another editor has expressed interest in starting another RS/N post regarding it. However, I believe that, so long as its article remains unchallenged and is wikilinked within references to it (like here), such discussion is superfluous, and its data may be considered reliable. Thoughts? Whisternefet (t · c · l) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Howdy, thanks for the invite. I've heard other editors argue that sites are typically considered reliable unless they're challenged. I don't blindly subscribe to that notion, but Son of the Bronx seems a fairly consistent source to me. TVBytheNumbers has its flaws too, as sometimes (or most of the time?) they leave out Sunday ratings and weird stuff like that, so without sources like these, the information we would be able to provide in television articles would be crippled, as there don't seem to be very many ratings sources. I would point out that there are major flaws with Zap2It, for example they've had lots of weird website issues where you click on a series episode list and get an OOPS! message, but then click another link to the episode list and it resolves. Or how Zap2It lists one season of Scaredy Squirrel, but TVGuide.com lists three. A lot of what we deal with involves quiltwork. So, I don't personally have a beef with Bronx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have created a new thread about the site at the reliable sources noticeboard; if you're interested, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Son of the Bronx. Whisternefet (t · c · l) 04:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Showfax

Another site we should consider is http://www.showfax.com. It's a reliable source, but only for planning information prior to episode production. Some editors cite it as evidence of episodes but episodes that are released often don't match what showfax says. Titles, air dates etc often change between when showfax lists them and when they are aired. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RS for Australian television

The list of reliable and unreliable sources doesn't currently include programming and ratings websites for Australia. Could we perhaps expand the list to include TV Tonight and MediaWeek as RS in this list? -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Epguides

Epguides probably needs to be mentioned somewhere in here. My $0.02 is that Epguides should be considered more than "unreliable" in terms of episode listings and airdates, but less than "reliable" – I'd advise putting it in the "No consensus on reliability" section. If anyone wants me to expand on why I think this, just ask. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That's strange. I always though epguides had been covered. I specifically raised it at WP:RSN. It was also raised later, in a discussion now archived here. I wouldn't call it reliable at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: On what basis would you call it "unreliable"? In my experience their content is at least 95% accurate. I personally wouldn't put it in the same category as IMDb (in terms of accuracy), though I agree that Epguides is probably only appropriate as an 'External link' in the same way that IMDb is... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy doesn't determine reliability. A site can be 100% accurate but not regarded as a reliable source. As was pointed out in the first thread I linked to, the Epguides FAQ says that the site is managed by fans, so it is unnaceptable as a reliable source per WP:USERG, which was linked to in the second thread. We had quite an extensive discussion about this regarding Pifeedback.com. Ultimately, one editor who persisted in using that website was indefinitely blocked. As an admitted fansite, epguides isn't even acceptable as an external link, per WP:ELNO. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's right – Epguides is like IMDb, in that much of the content is "user submitted", but there is editorial oversight in the form of George Fergus and Dennis Kytasaari (when the FAQ refers to "TV fans", it's referring to these two) – and I trust their level of oversight a lot more than I trust IMDb's. To be clear, Epguides has been around longer that Wikipedia, and I've been in contact with these guys variously over the years. They absolutely are acceptable as a WP:EL, if IMDb is. And they should be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Who are George Fergus and Dennis Kytasaari? Are they experts in the field? What are their credentials? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

TV.com

Shouldn't TV.com (and similar type sites like TV Rage) be added to the "unreliable sources" pile?... (And, if so, is TV.com "OK" as an External link? It has generally been considered so...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I assumed it already was. TV.com is largely no different than IMDb or Wikipedia, with a high bit of it user edited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)