Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 31
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
Characters looking like animals
If a character looks like an animal but isn't that animal, is it appropriate to use "-like"? For example "rabbit-like" for a character who looks like a rabbit without being a rabbit. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:91EF:58A5:7AF9:DD23 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's really better if that comes from sourcing – IOW, if a source says "...rabbit-like character..." then clearly it's OK to say this. Without that, though, it might qualify as WP:OR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- It depends on what features establish that. If the character has long floppy ears, a short puff tail, and bounces around, it would be reasonable fair to call that a "rabbit-like" character as a broad statement. It needs to be non-interpretive, and something that if shown to a large body of people, they would nearly all agree with the "rabbit-like" description. --Masem (t) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- we could use the word "Anthropomorphic".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving your takes. In that case, Bozzly in Abby Hatcher does fit the description of "rabbit-like" as he has floppy ears and a short puff tail. I ask this because there seems to be a disagreement in the article. The way I look at it, the animal descriptions that were in the article are pretty accurate. However, some user is quite objecting, has the descriptions removed, and has even protected the page. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:91EF:58A5:7AF9:DD23 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at images online, I can see why there's question. Most of the other animal creatures in that are definitely more vague to any specific animal type, and so there's fair caution here, and the character in question is in that grey zone - they have rabbit-like features but don't look like a rabbit. (Add that collectively the group of characters appear to be under a single species name but yet look all different) In such a case, if you can find reliable sourcing that describes them as "rabbit-like" that would be better, but I would tend to agree with the person that has removed them that this is just in the bounds of interpretation. --Masem (t) 23:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- What do official avenues describe them?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 23:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Considering that the show was released only a little over a year ago, it's unlikely that there'll be online interviews from the creators to give interesting information anytime soon. Therefore, we only have the show right now as a reference. In the case of Mo and Bo, those characters have pointy ears, w-shaped mouths, would purr sometimes, and would try to touch light beams that shine on the pavement, thus making them pretty much "cat-like". 172.250.44.165 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- As a note: since the show is notable (just notable, but notable), you can reasonably include a "major" cast picture (it will be non-free, but one picture is reasonable), and then in the caption ID who is who. This alleviates the need to even approach OR to try to describe them: just let the picture do it. --Masem (t) 07:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Going back to Masem's second comment, what makes you say the character in question doesn't look like a rabbit despite having rabbit-like features? 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:998B:F8DE:DE48:595F (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- While the character has long ears like a rabbit, they're definitely not shaped as rabbit's (tubular structure), and appear more alien than rabbit. I can see the rabbit-like qualities but I would be uncomfortable in calling it "rabbit-like" factually. --Masem (t) 19:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Like Bozzly, the long ears of the Peepers are tubular. But I sorta recall an episode where a character describes the Peepers as having "bunny ears". If the Peepers are described that way, then the same perception can be applied to Bozzly. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:194E:FEC9:9D25:A9FF (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- While the character has long ears like a rabbit, they're definitely not shaped as rabbit's (tubular structure), and appear more alien than rabbit. I can see the rabbit-like qualities but I would be uncomfortable in calling it "rabbit-like" factually. --Masem (t) 19:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Going back to Masem's second comment, what makes you say the character in question doesn't look like a rabbit despite having rabbit-like features? 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:998B:F8DE:DE48:595F (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- As a note: since the show is notable (just notable, but notable), you can reasonably include a "major" cast picture (it will be non-free, but one picture is reasonable), and then in the caption ID who is who. This alleviates the need to even approach OR to try to describe them: just let the picture do it. --Masem (t) 07:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Considering that the show was released only a little over a year ago, it's unlikely that there'll be online interviews from the creators to give interesting information anytime soon. Therefore, we only have the show right now as a reference. In the case of Mo and Bo, those characters have pointy ears, w-shaped mouths, would purr sometimes, and would try to touch light beams that shine on the pavement, thus making them pretty much "cat-like". 172.250.44.165 (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- What do official avenues describe them?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 23:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at images online, I can see why there's question. Most of the other animal creatures in that are definitely more vague to any specific animal type, and so there's fair caution here, and the character in question is in that grey zone - they have rabbit-like features but don't look like a rabbit. (Add that collectively the group of characters appear to be under a single species name but yet look all different) In such a case, if you can find reliable sourcing that describes them as "rabbit-like" that would be better, but I would tend to agree with the person that has removed them that this is just in the bounds of interpretation. --Masem (t) 23:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving your takes. In that case, Bozzly in Abby Hatcher does fit the description of "rabbit-like" as he has floppy ears and a short puff tail. I ask this because there seems to be a disagreement in the article. The way I look at it, the animal descriptions that were in the article are pretty accurate. However, some user is quite objecting, has the descriptions removed, and has even protected the page. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:91EF:58A5:7AF9:DD23 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- we could use the word "Anthropomorphic".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- It depends on what features establish that. If the character has long floppy ears, a short puff tail, and bounces around, it would be reasonable fair to call that a "rabbit-like" character as a broad statement. It needs to be non-interpretive, and something that if shown to a large body of people, they would nearly all agree with the "rabbit-like" description. --Masem (t) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note for context, this content has changed back and forth many times over the past year from "cat fuzzly" to "cat-like fuzzly" (and many many more), with both sides failing to discuss the matter in any significant way or to come up with a work-around. I removed the descriptions entirely since they are somewhat interpretive anyway, and since they have been so problematic and distracting. Typical for young kid TV articles, the contributors, it seems, are obsessed with trying to describe every mundane physical attribute--colours, shapes, interpretive comparisons--rather than adhering to the guidelines at MOS:TV. Having paragraph after paragraph describe characters and other topics as "slug-like", "rabbit-like", "meerkat-like", "cat-like", "doll-like" "red raspberry-like", "toy-like creatures", "detective-like skills", "watch-like communicating device gadget right on her wrist", "goo-like string", "quail-like feather" (yes, these are real[1][2]) doesn't quite seem like the professional tone we're trying to achieve, particularly when you can describe the appearances without deciding what you think they resemble, e.g. "Bozzly has floppy ears and a puffy tail", "a long body", "___ is a fuzzly that has whiskers", etc. So if any of you WikiProject Television regulars want to get involved to bring some reasonable shape to those descriptions, feel free. The article has been devoid of objective community scrutiny for a long time, and the obsession with *-like has been downplayed here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- With regards to content going back and forth, that's the fault of that dynamic British IP who only wants to edit pages, and not go into discussions (That IP doesn't even states his/her edits in edits summaries). Anyway, I believe stating what animal a Fuzzly resembles is more convincing than just describing the appearance. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Noooo, edit-warring takes at least two people. The fault here lies with all interested parties who can't figure out other ways to describe characters than getting ridiculous about physical appearances, and only figuring out one way to describe those appearances. I don't see anywhere at MOS:TVCAST where it suggests that cartoon character descriptions should be focused on colours and description of hair styles and should try to draw comparisons to real-world animals that might have inspired character design. Rather, the focus in these areas should be on brief character descriptions, for instance explaining the role that the character might play in a typical episode, and then trying to find real-world information about how the character was designed, how the voice actor was cast, etc. Colours? Shapes? Deciding that something is "goo-like"? That's not the typical focus of our usual character description section, and I don't see how those sorts of amateurish descriptions have a place at Wikipedia, and I don't understand your limp argument that interpretive comparisons are "more convincing". We're not trying to "convince" readers of anything. We're trying to briefly describe characters, so that if a reader were to watch the series, they'd understand who the characters are. Do we describe Jerry Seinfeld as a beige-like horse-like man with fluffy-like lion-like hair? No, that's absurd. But maybe other members of WikiProject Television will see things your way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the case of Seinfeld, things like skin color aren't described much, and hairstyle isn't either unless it plays a role in some episodes or has an impact in popular culture. When it comes to non-human characters, eye color and hair color are mostly trivial, but the main color is one of the general things stated in descriptions. As far as the animal descriptions are concerned, I wouldn't use the word "interpretive" much, considering the descriptions are based on aspects of the Fuzzlies that are commonly associated with certain animals. True, character aspects may be obvious to those who watch the show, but some people just want to read articles and not see the show, thus I figure it may be necessary to be more detailed. If we describe a character without naming an animal in particular, a number of animals are likely to come to the reader's mind. But if we named a particular animal, that would be more specific and more convincing. 107.77.227.125 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's all largely unnecessary, since a person watching the show could presumably see what the character looks like. Cast and character lists aren't written for police sketch artistes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I believe articles should be detailed for all readers, not just to those who watch the show. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:E1FF:15ED:7D74:370F (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's all largely unnecessary, since a person watching the show could presumably see what the character looks like. Cast and character lists aren't written for police sketch artistes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the case of Seinfeld, things like skin color aren't described much, and hairstyle isn't either unless it plays a role in some episodes or has an impact in popular culture. When it comes to non-human characters, eye color and hair color are mostly trivial, but the main color is one of the general things stated in descriptions. As far as the animal descriptions are concerned, I wouldn't use the word "interpretive" much, considering the descriptions are based on aspects of the Fuzzlies that are commonly associated with certain animals. True, character aspects may be obvious to those who watch the show, but some people just want to read articles and not see the show, thus I figure it may be necessary to be more detailed. If we describe a character without naming an animal in particular, a number of animals are likely to come to the reader's mind. But if we named a particular animal, that would be more specific and more convincing. 107.77.227.125 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Noooo, edit-warring takes at least two people. The fault here lies with all interested parties who can't figure out other ways to describe characters than getting ridiculous about physical appearances, and only figuring out one way to describe those appearances. I don't see anywhere at MOS:TVCAST where it suggests that cartoon character descriptions should be focused on colours and description of hair styles and should try to draw comparisons to real-world animals that might have inspired character design. Rather, the focus in these areas should be on brief character descriptions, for instance explaining the role that the character might play in a typical episode, and then trying to find real-world information about how the character was designed, how the voice actor was cast, etc. Colours? Shapes? Deciding that something is "goo-like"? That's not the typical focus of our usual character description section, and I don't see how those sorts of amateurish descriptions have a place at Wikipedia, and I don't understand your limp argument that interpretive comparisons are "more convincing". We're not trying to "convince" readers of anything. We're trying to briefly describe characters, so that if a reader were to watch the series, they'd understand who the characters are. Do we describe Jerry Seinfeld as a beige-like horse-like man with fluffy-like lion-like hair? No, that's absurd. But maybe other members of WikiProject Television will see things your way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- With regards to content going back and forth, that's the fault of that dynamic British IP who only wants to edit pages, and not go into discussions (That IP doesn't even states his/her edits in edits summaries). Anyway, I believe stating what animal a Fuzzly resembles is more convincing than just describing the appearance. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's okay, there's a transcript on the TVOKids website that uses the description: https://www.tvokids.com/transcript/125841x/preschool/abby-hatcher/videos/princess-flugs-flower-float "a blue rabbit-like Fuzzly creature" and does the same with some of the other Fuzzlies. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: Actually, no, I don't think it's okay, since Wikipedia would be parroting the prose in these copyrighted transcripts, which would likely constitute close paraphrasing, especially for weird descriptions like raspberry-like, twin cat-like, etc. I don't know where the other *-like content came from. If it came from show transcriptions, then it is likely a copyvio. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Another option is to say the character has rabbit ears. The rest of the character design is nothing like a rabbit. Saying the character is a rabbit Fuzzly would be original research since there isn't anything to justify that in the description. http://www.nickjr.co.uk/abby-hatcher/videos/abby-hatcher-meet-bozzly/ The description video does not reference any animals. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- If a character has long floppy ears and a puffy tail, shouldn't that be enough to qualify as rabbit-like? What more similarities are needed? The suffix "-like" simply means a character is similar to a certain animal but isn't that animal. It's like using the term "humanoid" when describing a lifeform who's is some ways similar to a human but isn't a human. In the article Stitch, the character there is liken to a koala. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:998B:F8DE:DE48:595F (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why would using descriptions from transcripts be copyvio? If a show says the canine protagonists in Puppy Dog Pals are pugs, then editors will refer to the dogs in the show's article as pugs. Therefore, using info from transcripts should be no different. 107.77.228.140 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Incorrect comparison. A pug is a known breed of dog. Calling a pug a pug is not interpretive, and the word "pug" is presumed to be a general noun in the public domain. You could potentially call one of the Abby Hatcher characters "rabbit-like" and support that opinion with that reference, but once you start describing each thing as *-like based on the primary source, i.e "slug-like", "raspberry-like", "goo-like", at some point you are abusing fair use and just copying the source's choice of descriptive phrasing, rather than doing what we are supposed to be doing, i.e. writing in our own words. If a primary source described Scooby-Doo as "carmel mocha-cocoa"-colored and we used that phrasing when we described him, that would probably not be appropriate, particularly when we could say "brown". When there are various ways to describe something, we should be be using our own words. "Slug-like" could be "gastropod", "raspberry-like" could be "lumpy purple". "Goo-like" could be "slimy" or "gooey". If there are ways to describe something that don't require interpretation or copying someone else's description, we should be doing that. I don't understand the inflexible obsession with *-like, as if there were no other options. Since this has been a recurring problem at the article, the interested participant(s) should be proposing ways to circumvent the problem rather than doubling-down on some sort of "correct" description as being the only way to address the matter. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Why would using descriptions from transcripts be copyvio? If a show says the canine protagonists in Puppy Dog Pals are pugs, then editors will refer to the dogs in the show's article as pugs. Therefore, using info from transcripts should be no different. 107.77.228.140 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- If a character has long floppy ears and a puffy tail, shouldn't that be enough to qualify as rabbit-like? What more similarities are needed? The suffix "-like" simply means a character is similar to a certain animal but isn't that animal. It's like using the term "humanoid" when describing a lifeform who's is some ways similar to a human but isn't a human. In the article Stitch, the character there is liken to a koala. 2605:E000:2E52:FA00:998B:F8DE:DE48:595F (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Another option is to say the character has rabbit ears. The rest of the character design is nothing like a rabbit. Saying the character is a rabbit Fuzzly would be original research since there isn't anything to justify that in the description. http://www.nickjr.co.uk/abby-hatcher/videos/abby-hatcher-meet-bozzly/ The description video does not reference any animals. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: Actually, no, I don't think it's okay, since Wikipedia would be parroting the prose in these copyrighted transcripts, which would likely constitute close paraphrasing, especially for weird descriptions like raspberry-like, twin cat-like, etc. I don't know where the other *-like content came from. If it came from show transcriptions, then it is likely a copyvio. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
List of The Sopranos characters
This series has four character lists. I've proposed merging one of them into List of The Sopranos characters. The series only needs a single list, so it seems like some minor characters will need to be pruned. Doing it one at a time would be best due to their length. If anyone familiar with the series would be available to do it, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, should the merge either be supported or simply recieve no comments for a month, I guess I'll just give it a shot and hope I don't cut anything important. TTN (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3) REJECTION + Upcoming TV show season article notability discussion
Hello, I am writing here to hear others' opinions on this. Recently, Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3) was outright rejected and is not allowed to be in the mainspace until it begins airing, according to the reviewers. They say it is not notable until such time (despite the multiple independent reliable sources covering it). However, I believe the Draft conforms to WP:NTV, WP:TOOSOON, and other guidelines. There has been extensive talk/argument/discussion here, here, and one of the reviewers believes (and apparently others AFC reviewers) that upcoming TV show seasons are not notable until they air. However, I believe this goes against years of precedent in there being an article as long as there is independent reliable sources, etc. The editor has even created a section regarding this on the WP:NTV talk page. I know my writing may come out harsh sometimes (I wouldn't characterize it as whining as they have done. I'm not even a fan of the show. I don't even watch it!), but that's only because this was so unexpected. I have been active around television show articles for a while now (you might've seen me), but this is the first time I have seen a situation like this. Thanks, hope to hear your thoughts. Heartfox (talk) 07:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep as a draft The point isn't that it isn't (or won't be) notable, but that that everything there is to say about it now can be covered in the List of episodes (I know there isn't one for TMS) or the show's main article. The discussion you linked claims there is significant coverage, but all I see in the draft is one paragraph worth of information, and half of that is "same old, same old" information. That's hardly what I'd call significant coverage, and nowhere near enough material to justify a WP:SPINOUT article. Because that's what season articles are: spinouts. – sgeureka t•c 11:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
New series/redirect problem
I'm not going to post the full thing because there is a lot to say and it's probably better if it's just read through- a user is currently very persistent that an article for a recently announced series must be created and must not be a redirect to a section on another article. The series in question is The Masked Dancer, a spin-off of Fox's The Masked Singer. Here is the press release on it released this past week.
I've expressed many examples of Wikipedia policies and essays (WP:WITHIN, WP:TVSHOW, WP:TOOSOON) as well as examples of other series that have a similar situation (Kamp Koral and The Bachelor: Listen to Your Heart), but the user seems to continue believing that those don't matter and that The Masked Dancer must be created and must not be a redirect.
I really don't want this discussion to keep going on forever until they finally get what they want, but I also don't want this to be something that needs to be brought to an administrator noticeboard. Am I somehow completely wrong with what I am telling the user, or is there something that can be done to finally end this all? If what I am telling them is correct though, I really don't know what else to do then- I don't want to keep trying to find a different/better way to explain the same thing to them some more, just to continue asking the same questions that have already been answered. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa: You seem very correct. The only thing I would say is, has production actually begun on The Masked Dancer, or has it only been announced? I don't deal much in the reality/unscripted space, but for your run of the mill drama/comedy program, general practice (along with WP:TVSHOW) is announced series or pilot orders do not receive articles until they have begun filming on the show (or if there is no way to cite that, once they have aired). The user is welcome to start making a draft article at Draft:The Masked Dancer (TV series) so they can curated it until it is time for it to be a full article in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93: All it was is just the announcement itself (at TCA) that the series is happening. Nothing announced about cast (panelists/host), filming location/dates, etc. I've told them multiple times that they can use a draft and/or sandbox when the information is more suitable in the spin-off section redirect, but they still seem to believe that myself and Heartfox (another user in the discussions) are 'preventing them' for adding any of this info (Ex: "And again, what exactly will it take for you to allow the article to exist, where it should be, on this article page?"). Magitroopa (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirecting it is fine, see a similar example such as Little Big Shots: Forever Young which only aired 6 episodes before cancellation and remains a redirect. Another example, 9-1-1: Lone Star was announced in May and remained a redirect to 9-1-1 until November. I'd say it's common practice to redirect until it's time for an article to be created. TheDoctorWho (Happy Christmas!) 23:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- They've reverted it back to a full article now... I've just put it back to a redirect, but at this point, I have a feeling I'll be taking this to WP:ANI... Magitroopa (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirecting it is fine, see a similar example such as Little Big Shots: Forever Young which only aired 6 episodes before cancellation and remains a redirect. Another example, 9-1-1: Lone Star was announced in May and remained a redirect to 9-1-1 until November. I'd say it's common practice to redirect until it's time for an article to be created. TheDoctorWho (Happy Christmas!) 23:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93: All it was is just the announcement itself (at TCA) that the series is happening. Nothing announced about cast (panelists/host), filming location/dates, etc. I've told them multiple times that they can use a draft and/or sandbox when the information is more suitable in the spin-off section redirect, but they still seem to believe that myself and Heartfox (another user in the discussions) are 'preventing them' for adding any of this info (Ex: "And again, what exactly will it take for you to allow the article to exist, where it should be, on this article page?"). Magitroopa (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Television seasons
I posted this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media), and was told to post it here instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears that this notability guideline addresses notability of television series, but does not specifically address when individual seasons of shows should have their own articles. I and some other AFC reviewers think that upcoming seasons are seldom notable, just as shows that have not yet been aired are seldom notable, and unreleased films are seldom notable. Some editors point out that other television shows have had new articles for future seasons before the season starts. Other editors think that this is a case of the argument that other stuff exists that isn't notable, as an excuse for allowing more non-notable stuff.
My thought at this point is that the notability guideline for TV shows should address seasons as well as shows, and should say that upcoming seasons do not need their own articles. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- A few factors for myself: a firm air date (month and day) within a few months is a good starting point. But one also needs details about production, filming, casting, etc. that differs from the show in general or previous seasons, otherwise those details can be in the main article on the show until such a time it can be expanded. I've seen the argument the new season should have an article until it airs, but I think that discourages adding that preliminary production information. --Masem (t) 05:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- As I said in discussion threads for The Masked Dancer seasons elsewhere, the question is not about the (current or future) notability of a season, but whether there is enough material to justify a WP:SPINOUT. This is very rarely the case before the new season has started (but it does happen). Unlike Masem, I feel that more material would be added and the season articles would be in a much better shape if we held off with the creation of stand-lone season articles. Season articles should be earned, and not be a fanboy dumping ground for material that's already present in the main article or episode list (WP:REDUNDANT) or is in other ways low-effort (e.g. contest WP:NOTSTATS). – sgeureka t•c 08:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- FWIW, I thought that the justification for a season article was the mass of content, typically going from Main Article > List of episodes > Season article. SpongeBob SquarePants (season 2) exists because there is no way to fit 12+ seasons of content into a List of episodes. I presently don't see how or why standalone notability would be required to justify a season article, unless that season article was just a duplicate of the main article, which I've seen. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would add that I was writing on the assumption that the show had already proven that it would have season articles - something you'd not usually known until S3 or so of a work. EG: With The Walking Dead having 10 reasonably fleshed out season articles, when Season gets firmed up, that's when spinning out S11 to a separate article from the main one makes sense. For a show with few seasons, I agree with Sguereka that that needs a lot more to show the first-time season breakout from the main article on the topic. A one-season show should never have that season broken out. --Masem (t) 14:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb and Masem, I agree with both of you on story-driven TV shows, especially if they span multiple seasons and are popular (i.e. more useful interviews with the creators). I kept my comments general because I had the (maybe wrong) impression that Robert McClenon is talking of competion-based TV shows. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's going to be different rules for different shows. If we're talking reality competition, of which there are zillions, whether one needs any season or list-of-episode article depends. The big shows like Survivor and Amazing Race certainly merit it from what we know, but other newer shows need the test of time to see if we need separate season articles. Masked Singer (and the dancing spinoff) feel just at the cusp of seasonable notability to make that question hard. --Masem (t) 15:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb and Masem, I agree with both of you on story-driven TV shows, especially if they span multiple seasons and are popular (i.e. more useful interviews with the creators). I kept my comments general because I had the (maybe wrong) impression that Robert McClenon is talking of competion-based TV shows. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: It would help to know if you're talking of season articles for story-driven TV shows and for contest-driven TV shows, as they have different justifications for existence. I am a lot more lenient on story-driven TV shows, because in-depth info on casting and production can be available months in advance before broadcast. Competion-based shows introduce the cast and rules in the new season's first episode, i.e. only during broadcast, so there is hardly any reason to start a season article before broadcast. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- User:sgeureka, User:Cyphoidbomb, User:Masem - The show that started this is a contest-driven show, Draft:The Masked Singer (American season 3). It appears that multiple editors are unhappy that the draft was Rejected, and they were told to wait until the season has started. They point out correctly that they have multiple reliable sources stating that the show will begin as a lead-out from the Super Bowl. I have said that reliable sources are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an article. The draft was Rejected because the authors were advised to discuss at the series talk page, and they would then repeatedly resubmit the draft for the season, and have it declined repeatedly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The guidelines do not clearly address notability criteria for seasons or episodes. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that that season article can exist based on : the reasonable coverage I've seen for S1 and S2 (interviews with some of the stars after their de-masking), ratings covers, and that Fox is clearly branding it as the post-SB followup. If no one was pushing me, I'd definitely wait until the first episode aired, if no other major sourcing came along, but someone making the season article now doesn't seem wrong. --Masem (t) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that there is an (unfortunate) tendency for certain editors to create season articles "just because", with no consideration of WP:SPINOUT or other criteria. And often enough, they create an incomplete article with a couple of cursory citations and make no real effort to develop a decent article out of it. And just because season 1 and season 2 have articles does not mean season 3 needs to be created before it even airs, or at all. Shows like Outlander and The Royals have no season articles (just split out episode lists) and season-by-season casting and production info is collected nicely. You could probably pull four skeletal season articles out of each one but what is the point when the main article is not prohibitively long?— TAnthonyTalk 23:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I feel that that season article can exist based on : the reasonable coverage I've seen for S1 and S2 (interviews with some of the stars after their de-masking), ratings covers, and that Fox is clearly branding it as the post-SB followup. If no one was pushing me, I'd definitely wait until the first episode aired, if no other major sourcing came along, but someone making the season article now doesn't seem wrong. --Masem (t) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
A review of this draft is requested. Should it be accepted as an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Cleanup of very bad character articles
I believe the time has come to do something about bad TV character articles. There are tons and tons of decade-old legacy articles (and also new articles that follow the bad legacy precedent) on TV characters that very much fail WP:NOTPLOT (often 25-40kB of plot) and fail to establish notability, although at least the main characters typically (at least somewhat) pass WP:GNG because of actor interviews and actor awards etc., and at other times even have WP:GA or WP:FA potential. The articles just don't show it, and (if trimmed for cruft) they usually wouldn't pass as a WP:SPINOUT stand-alone article. Typical examples: Belle (Once Upon a Time), John Sheridan (Babylon 5), Lynette Scavo.
I've seen different ways how to deal with them, and all ways get criticized because they have cons despite their pros. With the fiction AfD waves of the last half year (that usually ended in merge/redirect/delete, in no particular order), I'd like to see what consensus we have nowadays to best clean up such character articles, or (if you don't want to participate in cleanup) at least how you'd like to see it done. If you prefer options C or D, what would you generally do if the merger/redirect/prod action was undone (ignore and move on; discuss; restore the redirect and point to the relevant guidelines in the edit summary; or send it to AfD)?
- Option A Preferably tag the articles for the relevant issues and move on. Problem: Cleanup tags usually get ignored for years, accomplishing nothing.
- Option B Preferably start a merge discussion to a character list or the series' main article, even if technically nothing needs to be merged. Problem: You'll likely get no response (show was discontinued a while ago) or fans, i.e. the only ones who'll come across the merge discussion, block any merge attempts because of in-universe notability (show is still running or eternally popular).
- Option C Preferably WP:BOLDly merge or redirect the article to the LoC/show main article to preserve the page history (while observing WP:Fait accompli), but only if the article... (choose below). Problem: redirects easily get undone by drive-by fans because "there was no discussion", and edit-warring over the redirect or sending the article to AfD to restore the redirect is usually frowned upon, unless the case is clear cut.
- Option C-1 ... is 100% plot, original research, and trivial appearance info, otherwise consider other options.
- Option C-2 ... has a maximum of one paragraph of sourced non-trivial real-world information, otherwise consider other options.
- Option C-3 ... has a maximum of two paragraph of sourced non-trivial real-world information, otherwise consider other options.
- Option D Preferably WP:PROD the article, then wait for it to expire, or wait for it to get redirected/merged by someone else, or (if contested) send it to AfD. Problem: A prod for a beloved franchise is often by definition controversial, and deletion is not always the best option.
- Option E Preferably send the article straight to WP:AFD to get an impartial community-binding result. Problem: Deletion (the D in AfD) is not always the best option, and an AfD ending in keep often dooms any future merge discussions by definition.
Character discussion
- I prefer Option C-2 if the show is no longer popular (i.e. no expected opposition) to preserve the page history, otherwise Option B or E depending on the situation, Option D only for clear-cut cases. If the redirect gets undone, I tend to cleanup-tag-spam the article, start/join a merge discussion and return to the article after a while (months?) to look for improvement, then rinse and repeat Option C-2 (or even C-3), since everything noteworthy is already in the merge target. – sgeureka t•c 15:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- C-2 makes the most sense, but I would make sure that there is consensus for that, so that such redirects can be made with an edit summary like "Per Discussion here" (or something to point back to here), so that if they are undone without updates, it would not be edit warring to revert the un-redirect. And yeah, having at least a paragraph of something real-world is sufficient to keep at this point, but do make sure to tag {{long plot}} or other similar issues if there's a major problem (eg 1k of real-world text against 20k of plot). --Masem (t) 15:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- All of these options are acceptable. My first choice is option B. If the userbase participation in such discussions isn't wide enough then a neutral notice on this talk page would work (we could even have a dedicated section for them). My second choice is option C-2 and if someone contests the merge/redirect then start a discussion as in option B, but I prefer option B outright because there's no hurry for all of these merges so having the discussion first/anyway isn't a problem. — Bilorv (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- My preference would be a liberal and unsparing application of trinitrotoluene. From experience I know that it is harder to turn a crappy article into a good one than to write a good one from scratch. But of the listed options the one that seems fairest is C-2. Reyk YO! 15:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Option A. I'd be tougher on this if the three examples given were all secondary characters like Belle (Once Upon a Time), but John Sheridan (Babylon 5) is literally the main character of the show from Season 2 on, and Lynette Scavo is one of the four leads. I'd say WP:NEXIST applies -- there are tons of interviews and analyses written about Babylon 5 and Desperate Housewives that could be mined for real-world information about the actors, writers and producers involved in creating those characters, as well as reviews in major RS. I think Susan Mayer (another Desperate Housewives lead) is a very strong article, with tons of info about the creation and reception of the character. Susan is the "first among equals" and the main character of the show, but I think you could get the other three leads up to a similar level with work and patience. The question is, what would make it more likely that someone would turn the Lynette Scavo article into something like the Susan Mayer article? I don't think making it a redirect gets us closer to that goal. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not a fan of "just pick one". Each specific article will have a different outcome that is best for it. The general approach should be something like:
- Assess existence in article of sufficient quality sources, do a WP:BEFORE-level check, and/or a not-BEFORE-level check
- If a specific article has sufficient sources in-article to establish WP:N, leave alone (for now; you can entertain a merge later depending on the extant sourced series character content on Wikipedia)
- If a specific article does not have sufficient sources in-article to establish N, merge sourced content only into the appropriate article until someone can later WP:SPLIT the content back out (this may mean nothing ends up being merged)
- If you find nothing in the article and perform a BEFORE check and find nothing, send to PROD/AFD (depending on whether you want to wait for the PROD to [not] resolve...)
- Send to AFD if a bold merge is reverted.
- Maybe this content tends toward options C-E. I am super not a fan of "tag it and move on" much less "merge discussion" as those two options mostly end up in articles remaining stale and unactioned. Czar has an essay on "broken windows" theory that serves regarding fictional content. --Izno (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Sidetrack about centralized fiction guidance
- I'm going to probably side-track this discussion, but I believe this is (one of) the core issues so has to be dealt with first. The problem with character articles, is that the Manual of Style on how to write these articles is split between many different pages depending on the "type" of character it is (or the editor decides it belongs to "most"). The pages I found (and might be more) are Notability, MoS Fiction, WikiProject Fictional characters MoS Novels (MOS:CHARACTERS leads here), MoS Video games, MoS Comics, MoS Anime, WikiProject Anime, WikiProject Soap Operas, MoS TV. The only media that does not have it's own guide, is MoS Film. Add to the above that each media has it's own naming style rules and then add {{Infobox character}} and similar infoboxes. To me, this is the core of the issue. Even if you "fix" the TV MoS for characters, you'll then have an article that (as an example) the anime project claims ownership over it and decides that their MoS allows whatever it the issue is. Until all these different notability, naming conventions, style guides and infoboxes are all put in one place, this issue will always remain. --Gonnym (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd have to track it down, but at one point I tried to talk about a standard approach to character articles, but editors felt the individua WProject advice was better than a standardized one. There is something to be said about this to a degree (we'd treat a notable television character differently than a notable video game character in terms of how we present their role in the work), but there still is the general advice that these articles must be focused on trying to establish real-world notability via "reception" and "concept and creation", and that the amount of plot must be kept terse and not simply regurgitate plot from the work or go into excessive detail that work plots can't have. --Masem (t) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree that we should treat them different and even that they are so. If the real-world creation of the character is important for TV-characters, it should be important for video game ones. If the plot is important to comics it should be important for novels. If a list of appearances if important for manga, then it can be important for films. There really is nothing that is unique to one type. It's just that to one "group" of editors, their "important information" should be included while it is "trivia" for other types of characters. These are the type of arguments that were presented in TfD mergers of infobox character over the past year+. --Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I fully agree that we should have common guidance across all media types for characters; as I noted, I found there was resistance against that treatment. I do think how the plot stuff may need different handling depending, but broadly the same elements should exist for all media.--Masem (t) 04:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree that we should treat them different and even that they are so. If the real-world creation of the character is important for TV-characters, it should be important for video game ones. If the plot is important to comics it should be important for novels. If a list of appearances if important for manga, then it can be important for films. There really is nothing that is unique to one type. It's just that to one "group" of editors, their "important information" should be included while it is "trivia" for other types of characters. These are the type of arguments that were presented in TfD mergers of infobox character over the past year+. --Gonnym (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I'd have to track it down, but at one point I tried to talk about a standard approach to character articles, but editors felt the individua WProject advice was better than a standardized one. There is something to be said about this to a degree (we'd treat a notable television character differently than a notable video game character in terms of how we present their role in the work), but there still is the general advice that these articles must be focused on trying to establish real-world notability via "reception" and "concept and creation", and that the amount of plot must be kept terse and not simply regurgitate plot from the work or go into excessive detail that work plots can't have. --Masem (t) 15:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've dropped multiple comments here and elsewhere about how fiction guidance should all be on one set of pages by subcomponent of fiction rather than scattered as it is among different domains today. I'm happy to work with/discuss/work on such a page, but it's an undertaking because even within domains, advice can be scattered. I also don't know the best way to reconcile differences, especially with restrictiveness or adherence to WP:WAF or similar versus not ("Powers and abilities" comics editors, I'm looking at you). --Izno (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh Gonnym this is not just a side-track, this is opening a can of worms! Or, opening a can of spaghetti, because standardization really is something we should be exploring. You make a good point about the individual Project MoS guidelines, there are definitely some practices that one Project suppresses and another Project justifies. We can at least start to assess what the differences currently are among Projects. I do think the structure and content of character articles and infobox usage may need to vary slightly depending on the media in some cases, but right now we sort of have Projects going rogue with practices that push the envelope of what has been hammered out over time with WikiProject TV. There will be plenty of pushback to any "sweeping" changes we might suggest, but we're already fighting less experienced editors over newly-created character articles that don't cut it. A common guideline should at least mitigate the long term issues, and any hubbub will die down, as it (almost) always does.— TAnthonyTalk 19:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox character and WAF
I am reaching out to your project because your project may have an interest in this discussion: Template talk:Infobox character § Removing parameters regarding WP:WAF. Izno (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Star Parivaar Awards
I'm curious how the community feels about the content at Star Parivaar Awards. I believe the award itself is notable, as it is often talked about in trades and is an event aired on the Indian StarPlus network. However, it's basically just StarPlus lavishing praise on its own shows and actors who appear in those shows. As an "in-house" award, there might be a legitimate question as to whether or not the lists of winners are noteworthy or not; an RfC was held at WT:ICTF a while back and consensus favoured the removal of these awards from biographical and TV articles. I thought I'd see if anybody felt the same way about the list of winners in the main subject article as well. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Cyphoidbomb once an article is Notable, the standard for content in that article is (roughly) relevance and due weight for inclusion. IMO an essentially self-promotional award is pretty lame, but given that someone has chosen to read that article the reader is likely to consider the winner info interesting or valuable. My concern is the sheer quantity and bulk of winner listings. I don't think the bulk is so bad that we need to hard-chop it down, but any reduction in raw bulk would be welcome if anyone sees a way to clean it up or trim it down or otherwise make it more efficient. Alsee (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I may have an unhealthy irritation with this article's subject, so maybe I shouldn't do it.
Your response and input is much appreciated, however. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- I may have an unhealthy irritation with this article's subject, so maybe I shouldn't do it.
What exactly is this page supposed to be?
Ben 10 full series; this page reads like a bunch of vague nonsense, what is it supposed to be an article about exactly?★Trekker (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's basically List of Ben 10 episodes. I redirected it to that page. It was just created last month, so someone must not have known there was an LOE page for Ben 10 already. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
"Location" parameter in Template:Infobox television
I'm certain I've brought this issue up before but I'm not sure at what venue, but this appears to be the best place right now. This stemmed from an issue at Watchmen (TV series). For as far I remember and currently, the instructions at Template:Infobox television for |location= states, "Production location, i.e. where the show is/was shot. Leave blank if same as country of origin above (emphasis mine). Now, I've been editing TV Wikipedia articles for over a decade now, and this instruction has essentially been ignored across every major TV article I am aware of. For one, the instructions aren't very logical; there's not much a point in only including locations for shows where they are filmed outside of its origin country, as that leaves a small number of shows. For comparison, it would be the same as not including "English" as its original language if it's country of origin is the United States. So, can we please simply remove the "Leave blank if same as country of origin above" from the instructions. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- The reason is that we do not want to repeat information, and location is (mostly) trivial to get from country of origin. Language = English cannot be inferred from filmed in the United States in the same way. (Moreover, there are other countries which have multiple languages of interest.) --Izno (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Right, that was just a comparison to be made, not really the issue. All the infobox does is repeat information, it's a basic overiew (along with the lede) of the article itself. The filming location isn't trivial, as it's quite common for filming details to be covered in the body text. There's definitely more trivial items included in the infobox that is generally never covered in the body text, such as audio and picture format. My main point is that from what I've seen, most TV articles (including FA/GA-level) do not follow this instruction, and it's become severely outdated. For the example at Watchmen, to follow the instructions to the letter, would mean we only list Wales as the filming location because it's the only location that is not the same of country of origin, which incorrectly implies that Wales is only filming location. That is illogical. The editor that made the edit removed Georgia (U.S. state) (Watchmen's primary filming location) and simply replaced it with United States, which isn't helpful because there's no point in not being precise. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've noticed but on talk shows when the host asks audience members where they are from, Americans will specify their state, while the non-Americans just state their country. For Americans, knowing the specific location outside of the US is unnecessary as they generally won't know where it is. For non-Americans, knowing the US state is unnecessary because most non-Americans probably won't know where the state is. This is similar to the issue you are discussing. For most programs it is unnecessary and generally pointless to use a specific location, which is why we only use countries. It would be rather pointless to, say, include Ararat, Victoria for a US program filmed in Australia. That's why we only use countries in the field. For any program, if it is exclusively shot in the country of origin there is no need to indicate because it is assumed that it was shot in that country. However, where production of a program spans multiple countries, it's necessary to include the country of origin to avoid an assumption that it is only shot in the country listed in the location field. The edit that you are concerned with is valid per the infobox instructions and actually does make sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- If we're only supposed to use countries for that parameter, the instructions should say that. I didn't know this. I thought it would have been OK to note "Bangkok, Thailand" for a US show shot in Bangkok. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- There are competing ideologies in what is considered important. While the infobox guideline (per above) says not to include specific locations, the category tree at Category:American television series by production location does. One can argue that these serve different things, but I disagree. An article should be seen as a consistent and single entity, which to me means that the infobox, categories and article should all say the same thing in the same manner. In this example, if there is a category tree that has "Television shows filmed in Georgia (U.S. state)", then the infobox should follow and not obstruct that information behind the general "United States" or worse, not show it at all. If on the other hand, one argues that the filming information isn't a core aspect and useful in the infobox, then that's a valid argument, but then it should be removed altogether. As a side comment, in a better system than what we currently have, WP:TEMPLATECAT wouldn't have existed and the template would actually handle these categories. --Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- If we're only supposed to use countries for that parameter, the instructions should say that. I didn't know this. I thought it would have been OK to note "Bangkok, Thailand" for a US show shot in Bangkok. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've noticed but on talk shows when the host asks audience members where they are from, Americans will specify their state, while the non-Americans just state their country. For Americans, knowing the specific location outside of the US is unnecessary as they generally won't know where it is. For non-Americans, knowing the US state is unnecessary because most non-Americans probably won't know where the state is. This is similar to the issue you are discussing. For most programs it is unnecessary and generally pointless to use a specific location, which is why we only use countries. It would be rather pointless to, say, include Ararat, Victoria for a US program filmed in Australia. That's why we only use countries in the field. For any program, if it is exclusively shot in the country of origin there is no need to indicate because it is assumed that it was shot in that country. However, where production of a program spans multiple countries, it's necessary to include the country of origin to avoid an assumption that it is only shot in the country listed in the location field. The edit that you are concerned with is valid per the infobox instructions and actually does make sense. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Right, that was just a comparison to be made, not really the issue. All the infobox does is repeat information, it's a basic overiew (along with the lede) of the article itself. The filming location isn't trivial, as it's quite common for filming details to be covered in the body text. There's definitely more trivial items included in the infobox that is generally never covered in the body text, such as audio and picture format. My main point is that from what I've seen, most TV articles (including FA/GA-level) do not follow this instruction, and it's become severely outdated. For the example at Watchmen, to follow the instructions to the letter, would mean we only list Wales as the filming location because it's the only location that is not the same of country of origin, which incorrectly implies that Wales is only filming location. That is illogical. The editor that made the edit removed Georgia (U.S. state) (Watchmen's primary filming location) and simply replaced it with United States, which isn't helpful because there's no point in not being precise. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Circus: Inside the Greatest Political Show on Earth#To display or not to display an "empty" table.. — YoungForever(talk) 16:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
So, looks like it's ending Archived 2020-02-01 at the Wayback Machine. My question is what will happen with shows like Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back and The Masked Singer which uses TVbtN for viewership? I'm not really that knowledgeable with what sites get what ratings, but I know Showbuzz Daily doesn't usually report viewership for those two shows. Magitroopa (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- This opens up a larger question – do (broadcast) TV ratings even mean anything anymore, in what is now a "time-shifting"/streaming TV universe?! I'd argue that TV ratings are now meaningless (and probably have been for about 5 years now – and not just SAME DAY, but pretty much even LIVE+7). It's unfortunate that a lot of editors continue to be stuck in the past, and insist that we keep including ratings info for current TV shows, when in the modern environment we probably should have stopped tracking/including them quite some time ago... So, if you ask me, we shouldn't even bother to find a replacement for TV by the Numbers. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think ratings are still important, but we should be using as broad figures as we can—anything that tracks online streaming and a lengthier window, so that we do not have biases towards certain demographics of viewers (e.g. older people, who are less likely to watch online). The figures are important as they show the popular success (or lack thereof) of a programme and they are statistics still taken seriously in the industry, as far as I'm aware, in terms of what timeslots to give shows and when to renew them. For non-comparable or non-standard viewing figures, footnotes should be used to clarify what is counted as a "view". — Bilorv (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- The money in TV still comes from ads, the cost of which are still based on ratings. They still mean a ton. --SubSeven (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Batwoman (TV series)
There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Batwoman (TV series)#LaMonica Garrett as starring if Garrett should be considered a main character due to being billed as such, despite only appearing in a crossover episode. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
List of The Try Guys episodes
Can anyone make sense of List of The Try Guys episodes? I suggest sitting down before you click the link. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- That list is a combination of the series "The Try Guys" and the franchise of series built around the group known as "The Try Guys". It should probably be reconstructed and split. --Gonnym (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
"R from television episode" template wording RfC
Please see Template talk:R from television episode#RfC: The template wording's accuracy.
I've RfCed this because the page has very few active watchlisters other than the disputing parties. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Young Sheldon#Splitting proposal . — YoungForever(talk) 01:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
RFC at Batwoman
I'm trying to get some more editors to participate in the RFC at Talk:Batwoman_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment about listing the monitor as a main character or a guest. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
M&L and F415
Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company for TV Land: Myths and Legends. Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/companycredits?ref_=ttfc_sa_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC (talk)
Requesting to add Gay Rosenthal as Executive Producer and Gay Rosenthal Productions as Production Company to Fame for 15. Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0946709/companycredits?ref_=ttfc_sa_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:DCBD:54C8:E6A8:ADD1 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:7F:E8A5:BD5B:19E2:8701:AFBC (talk)
- Probably need something better than IMDb before granting the request and adding this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Move discussion - Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
A move discussion is taking place at Talk:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (song)#Requested move 2 February 2020 which may be of interest to watchers of this page. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
TV/film ratings template
Hey, I thought I'd ask for some views on making a template like Template:Album ratings for film and TV ratings, which reviews often give now. I have seen the album ratings template used on film and TV articles, but perhaps one for AV media that has that in the name, and with the purple colors used for TV templates, would be worth it? Kingsif (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Changing the names of transgender staff members
I have come across a problem where transgender members of staff are being listed by their deadnames on tv shows wikipedia pages. I have been told that the WP:TV policy requires staff to be listed how they are credited in an episode, however I believe an exception should be allowed in these such cases as deadnaming transgender people is inherently transphobic. Ndncndln (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- There are going to be two issues at play: how notable the staff person is, and how well know the transition was. A non-notable staff person with no coverage of their transition means we're likely going to keep the name as credited even if that's the dead name. The ur counter-example of course is with the Wachowskis with the Matrix movies: they were already well known, and their transition was well-covered in media, so that's a case where we have retroactively found a solution to avoid the "deadname" situation. A core WP BLP policy with regards to transgendered is that we aren't going to hide their deadname if they were notable under that deadname. If they aren't notable, then we may have wiggle room, but in the case of a TV episode, which the credits are "baked" it may be hard not to mention the deadname. --Masem (t) 14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I added their new name with a citation and was cordially invited to come here to discuss this:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes&action=history
- So, can the edit, which I have sourced, stay? --occono (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- The source you gave is a Masters thesis which is nowhere close to reliable for BLP issues. --Masem (t) 22:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I'd still like to get confirmation of a definite policy to handle these situations is if the citation is reliable though, I will work on a better source. Pointing to broad policy outlines on here without justifying them is not my favourite part of Wikipedia.--occono (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Out of curiousity, how did you believe that the thesis linked would support your claim that they had changed their names? -- /Alex/21 22:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not Occono, but I assume the reason Occono thought that that thesis supports the claim that Jesse Zuke changed their name is because the thesis states that that is the case. AJD (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is not that the thesis is likely wrong, but simply that it is a masters thesis, and does not meet what we'd consider the basic of a reliable source, particularly for a BLP. In this case, we'd actually take a tweet from the person directly (as long as we have confirmation of their identity) over that, but we'd really prefer a more reliable source, as defined per WP:RS. --Masem (t) 03:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not Occono, but I assume the reason Occono thought that that thesis supports the claim that Jesse Zuke changed their name is because the thesis states that that is the case. AJD (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Out of curiousity, how did you believe that the thesis linked would support your claim that they had changed their names? -- /Alex/21 22:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK. I'd still like to get confirmation of a definite policy to handle these situations is if the citation is reliable though, I will work on a better source. Pointing to broad policy outlines on here without justifying them is not my favourite part of Wikipedia.--occono (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- The source you gave is a Masters thesis which is nowhere close to reliable for BLP issues. --Masem (t) 22:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- As Masem stated, this is clearly a BLP issue. Can I open the episode and see their previous name credited in the episode? Yes? Then that's how they should be listed for that episode. Will they be credited in future episodes with their new name? Yes? Then that's how they should be listed for those episodes. Just as we don't hide spoilers, "deadnames", or whatever the term is/means, is a personal issue and not one to take to Wikipedia. That does not make Wikipedia or its policies transphobic. Just because it is sourced, does not mean we can change what has already happened. -- /Alex/21 22:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did include their credited name in the edit, and then sourced the fact that they do not use this name anymore. --occono (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- See my above comment; specifically the last sentence. -- /Alex/21 22:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did not "change what has already happened". I indicated the name the episode credits, but I updated the information to be reflective of the most up to date information, for the same reason that if someone marries someone and gets renamed, we change their article's name to reflect this too. The list is not a transcript of the episode credits, it's an encyclopedia that reflects up to date knowledge.--occono (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- In such a case, the article might be renamed, but in every article of their listed filmography, is every instance of their name changed? No. Same applies here. -- /Alex/21 22:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. For instance, every article in Ellen Burstyn's filmography that mentions her as a cast member lists her under the name Ellen Burstyn, even those for which she was credited under the name Ellen McRae. Some of them state that she was "then billed as Ellen McRae", but all of them use "Ellen Burstyn" as the primary name by which she is credited in the article. The same is true for Mahershala Ali, who changed his name in 2010, during the existence of Wikipedia, meaning, yes, someone must have literally gone back to every article in his filmography to update his name. AJD (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- That is not common practice, and I would be interested in seeing who changed those entries under what policy or reasoning. -- /Alex/21 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- How sure are you that it's "not common"? I just looked up Phylicia Rashad, Alexander Siddig, and Meredith Baxter; of the three only Baxter is not consistently listed by her current name in articles about shows and films in which she was credited by other names. Out of the first five actors I could think of who have changed their names, four are without exception listed primarily by their current name rather than as credited, and Baxter is about half the time. It seems pretty "common" to me. AJD (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- That is not common practice, and I would be interested in seeing who changed those entries under what policy or reasoning. -- /Alex/21 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. For instance, every article in Ellen Burstyn's filmography that mentions her as a cast member lists her under the name Ellen Burstyn, even those for which she was credited under the name Ellen McRae. Some of them state that she was "then billed as Ellen McRae", but all of them use "Ellen Burstyn" as the primary name by which she is credited in the article. The same is true for Mahershala Ali, who changed his name in 2010, during the existence of Wikipedia, meaning, yes, someone must have literally gone back to every article in his filmography to update his name. AJD (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- In such a case, the article might be renamed, but in every article of their listed filmography, is every instance of their name changed? No. Same applies here. -- /Alex/21 22:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did not "change what has already happened". I indicated the name the episode credits, but I updated the information to be reflective of the most up to date information, for the same reason that if someone marries someone and gets renamed, we change their article's name to reflect this too. The list is not a transcript of the episode credits, it's an encyclopedia that reflects up to date knowledge.--occono (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- See my above comment; specifically the last sentence. -- /Alex/21 22:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I think Masem gives insight into common practice pretty accurately, but so far as I am aware the only relevant quote from policy here is from MOS:GENDERID:
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.
We have other policies that apply to articles about trans people, but that is not the situation here if I understand correctly—we're only talking about people mentioned on articles about things they worked on. If there is no reliable source describing a person's new name then we're in a very difficult situation as WP:BLP does not permit us to use unsourced information about living persons. If, however, there is a reliable source then my opinion is that we should use their correct name and mention their credited deadname in a footnote. Interestingly, you'll find precedence for this in different circumstances—take the article The Convention Conundrum (one I worked on, but which passed independent reviews). It credits Kaley Cuoco as such but notes under "Production" that the credits read "Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting" at the time. Perhaps a more relevant case to consider is that of Emily VanDerWerff, a trans reviewer who is now credited by "Emily" rather than her deadname, per consensus here, though in her case the bylines of her articles have been changed online, whereas television credits are not changed in the same way. Masem: I'm not sure whether you meant to writeA core WP BLP policy with regards to transgendered is ...
as it's not grammatically correct anyway, but that last word is a slur—I think "transgender people" would fit there instead. Alex 21: you're being quite hostile here. If you don't know what "deadname" means then you can do some research before expressing an opinion. You could start with Healthline's introduction (skip the law-related stuff). You'll see from my examples above (which I wrote before reading your posts here) that your comment aboutJust because it is sourced, does not mean we can change what has already happened
overlooks some actual practice and established consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- I did include their credited name in the edit, and then sourced the fact that they do not use this name anymore. --occono (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- We had a site-wide WP:RfC about this (which, of course, is now impossible to find), and I believe the result of that RfC was that we leave the former name(s) of the person in those historical contexts in an article in which the former name was used, and don't go back an "retroactively" change them. What has changed since the RfC?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)−
- I don't know when that RfC was, but of course one possible answer to what has changed might be that it is now more widely recognized that it is inappropriate to deadname a transgender person. But in any event, that policy does not appear to widely applied even in the case of cisgender people (cf. Ellen Burstyn and Mahershala Ali, as mentioned above); all the more reason for it not to be applied for transgender people, for whom it is actively offensive. AJD (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- This RfC? --Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- If it is indeed the above RFC, then the consensus is clear:
There appears to be a consensus to list credited names only.
That RFC was nine months ago, and is thus very much still relevant. To overrule it, another site-wide RFC would have to be held and closed with a clear opposing consensus. -- /Alex/21 06:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)- The summary of the consensus on that RfC is very clear and specific that "this will not result in deadnaming anyone". That is a highly unusual situation that does not appear to be generalizable beyond Drag Race. There is no reason to consider that the result of that RfC is relevant to any show where listing credited names only would result in deadnaming someone; the fact that no deadnaming would result appears essential to the reasoning that led that RfC to its conclusion. AJD (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed this RfC is deliberately limited in scope and takes not deadnaming people into account in its conclusion. I believe the only policy or consensus to have been correctly presented in this discussion remains my quote from MOS:GENDERID:
Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis. Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned.
It's rather frustrating to deal with non-falsifiable claims that some policy or consensus exists somewhere to say something half-remembered. How about we instead follow the only verifiably true part of policy that's been presented and argue what should happenon a case-by-case basis
? — Bilorv (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed this RfC is deliberately limited in scope and takes not deadnaming people into account in its conclusion. I believe the only policy or consensus to have been correctly presented in this discussion remains my quote from MOS:GENDERID:
- The summary of the consensus on that RfC is very clear and specific that "this will not result in deadnaming anyone". That is a highly unusual situation that does not appear to be generalizable beyond Drag Race. There is no reason to consider that the result of that RfC is relevant to any show where listing credited names only would result in deadnaming someone; the fact that no deadnaming would result appears essential to the reasoning that led that RfC to its conclusion. AJD (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- No, it was definitely not that RfC – the one I'm thinking of took place around the time that Caitlyn Jenner transitioned, and it was the site as a whole, not on a specific TV series. But, of course, I couldn't find it last night when I was looking for it, because I have no idea what that RfC was titled... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- That would be mid-2015 then, since Bruce Jenner was moved to Caitlyn Jenner on 1 June 2015. Maybe search the archives of WP:BLPN or WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification - just as a tip, searching for "wp:rfc Caitlyn Jenner" brought this up first option. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's the one. The list that Masem point to notes that the result of that RfC was the "narrowing" of MOS:IDENTITY to what is basically the current wording. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- That appears to have also been a narrow conclusion that doesn't necessarily generalize to other individuals or articles. From the summary: "there is broad support for the application of proposal 1 to this article.... All of which helps us for this particular article but does little to solve the more general problem". AJD (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- That's the one. The list that Masem point to notes that the result of that RfC was the "narrowing" of MOS:IDENTITY to what is basically the current wording. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity has a list of all major RFCs related to gender identity. --Masem (t) 15:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification - just as a tip, searching for "wp:rfc Caitlyn Jenner" brought this up first option. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- That would be mid-2015 then, since Bruce Jenner was moved to Caitlyn Jenner on 1 June 2015. Maybe search the archives of WP:BLPN or WP:VPP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- If it is indeed the above RFC, then the consensus is clear:
- This RfC? --Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know when that RfC was, but of course one possible answer to what has changed might be that it is now more widely recognized that it is inappropriate to deadname a transgender person. But in any event, that policy does not appear to widely applied even in the case of cisgender people (cf. Ellen Burstyn and Mahershala Ali, as mentioned above); all the more reason for it not to be applied for transgender people, for whom it is actively offensive. AJD (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have always operated on the understanding that how they were credited originally is how the work is listed. We do this when people start their careers as "Tony" and when they become more well known start going by "Anthony", or even misspellings of names in credits. It's part of the record. We haven't retroactively changed that on the work in question. This is different than say changing their personal Wikipage to reflect their current name. I vehemently disagree that not doing so is "transphobic", because the argument has nothing to do with recognizing them as a trans person and everything to do with the fact that their "deadname" is still the listed credit of that work. For a separate example, see Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics, which still lists Bruce Jenner as the winner of the gold medal, even though Bruce (who was widely well known in recent years) very publicly transitioned to Caitlyn Jenner and that was well covered. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- As noted above, the practice you described actually isn't how "we do this", and many individuals' names are "retroactively changed" on articles about works they have been involved with to keep up with changes in their names. In addition to the examples of Mahershala Ali, Ellen Burstyn, Alexander Siddig, and Phylicia Rashad whom I've mentioned above, Masem points out the example of the Wachowskis, whose names and credits have been updated on the articles in their filmography. In any event, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the reader, not to simply transcribe the credits of TV shows; the reader wants to know what person was involved in this production?. Reporting an incorrect name (including a misspelled name!) is just not giving the reader the information they're looking for. Moreover, though you may "vehemently disagree", you're mistaken; it is widely understood that unnecessarily referring to a transgender person by their former name is a transphobic act unless the person in question has stated otherwise. AJD (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- "Widely understood"...I think not. I've been a therapist for over 10 years, and worked with transgendered individuals, and I've never met anyone that got upset because there were documents that referenced their former name (or sometimes current name, because they had not legally changed it yet but only requested to be referred by a different name---which was done informally, but legal documents are legal documents). Phobia means fear. Even if you were to argue from an "ism" standpoint, no one is denying their identity, they are merely acknowledging that there was a different identifier earlier in their life. It's also not wrong to report on how things were originally listed. Those individuals still link back to their current name. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which recounts historical events. Ignoring history by saying that Caitlyn Jenner was called "Caitlyn Jenner" in the 1975 Olympics is 100% inaccurate and more detrimental to readers than what you are suggesting. History is history, regardless of what happens currently, it isn't revisionist history. The examples you picked, I would tell you, should not have gone back and changed the name of the actor from what they were originally credited. The reason being, because apparently this has more to do with a social justice issue with you than an encyclopedic one, is because someone going back to look at a page might be a little confused when they don't see the name of the person they saw in the credits. Now, for people that are married you might be able to figure it out. But that's not always the case. Take another sports figure Muhammed Ali, formerly Cassius Clay. You'll notice that Muhammad Ali vs. Sonny Liston has half the article written using "Clay", because that was his name when he first Liston the first time. The article changes to Ali when he changed his name. That's how it should be. There's a difference between how a film or TV article should list the credits (which yes, we've always fallen back on how were they actually credited---which is why "Two-Face" doesn't come up in The Dark Knight), and how we present that person's individual article (which should reflect how they currently identify). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- As noted above, the practice you described actually isn't how "we do this", and many individuals' names are "retroactively changed" on articles about works they have been involved with to keep up with changes in their names. In addition to the examples of Mahershala Ali, Ellen Burstyn, Alexander Siddig, and Phylicia Rashad whom I've mentioned above, Masem points out the example of the Wachowskis, whose names and credits have been updated on the articles in their filmography. In any event, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the reader, not to simply transcribe the credits of TV shows; the reader wants to know what person was involved in this production?. Reporting an incorrect name (including a misspelled name!) is just not giving the reader the information they're looking for. Moreover, though you may "vehemently disagree", you're mistaken; it is widely understood that unnecessarily referring to a transgender person by their former name is a transphobic act unless the person in question has stated otherwise. AJD (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have always operated on the understanding that how they were credited originally is how the work is listed. We do this when people start their careers as "Tony" and when they become more well known start going by "Anthony", or even misspellings of names in credits. It's part of the record. We haven't retroactively changed that on the work in question. This is different than say changing their personal Wikipage to reflect their current name. I vehemently disagree that not doing so is "transphobic", because the argument has nothing to do with recognizing them as a trans person and everything to do with the fact that their "deadname" is still the listed credit of that work. For a separate example, see Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics, which still lists Bruce Jenner as the winner of the gold medal, even though Bruce (who was widely well known in recent years) very publicly transitioned to Caitlyn Jenner and that was well covered. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said above Bignole, transgendered
is a slur; you simply want the word "transgender" there. You say that: someone going back to look at a page might be a little confused when they don't see the name of the person they saw in the credits
. But this has already been addressed in comments above. AJD notes that a person reading the credits is looking for the person who was involved, not the syntactic sequence of characters listed in the credits—it's more confusing to expect a person to be present in the credits but then to find... well, something that isn't a person but a mistake there. My comment above notes that there is precedent for using a person's correct name and having a footnote listing their deadname to avoid confusion, which allays your confusion concern. And additionally, you did not respond to the example of the Wachowskis. I'd also like to add that your understanding of "revisionist history" is rather unnuanced if it prevents any typographical or editorial changes—should we refer to the Roman Empire only as Imperium Rōmānum because the former is linguistic revisionism? The important information here is the identifiable object, not the name given to it.
As for your claim that there's a "social justice issue", I'd like to see you actually explain what you mean by "social justice" and justify why it's either a bad thing or a different thing to WP:BLP's statement that material [about living persons] requires a high degree of sensitivity
. Perhaps the trans individuals you've known are not showing signs of unease when seeing a deadname in a place they expected to see it, but I would expect a therapist to have a much more nuanced understanding of dysphoria and of where a person reasonably expects to see trauma triggers. — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
- Let me address the last thing first: Trying to somehow insinuate that I'm not understanding of the trans-community simply because I typed "transgendered" is just a backhanded way of personally attacking someone. I understand trauma triggers, I've been trained to work with people who have suffered traumatic events. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you're implying that someone who is trans is being triggered by the thought that their birth name is on a legal document that is required to have their legal name listed? Sorry, I cannot support that idea if that's what you mean, because I've never seen that happen in all my years. But that's neither here nor there, and I'll get to why in a moment.
- When I say "social justice", it isn't meant to be disparaging, it's to separate out a discussion about what is and is not phobic/racist/etc. from a discussion about what should be the proper way to identify historical information. The reason I felt the need to say that was because this section literally started off with an accusation of transphobia: "I believe an exception should be allowed in these such cases as deadnaming transgender people is inherently transphobic." Transphobia is "fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to society's gender expectation." None of that is taking place here, nor out in the TV or Film community pages. Let me be clear, the item being discuss about these pages is NOT about denying a transperson's preferred gender identity, nor is it about denying them the name they wish to go by. This discussion is about HISTORICAL events. The issue of deadnaming someone being "transphobic" would make sense only if there was record of said individual trying to remove all evidence of said deadname from existence. While this is the case for many in the trans-community, I would like to see said case when it comes to a public figure (not denying it might not, just that it's atypical). The purpose of removing a deadname has typically been to hide who you once were so people only know who you currently are. For someone in the public eye, like say Caitlyn Jenner....everyone already know who she was and who she is. She cannot wipe that out, because she was a public figure and there is too much historical documentation about Caitlyn's life as Bruce Jenner to just wipe it from eternity. That doesn't mean we don't recognize Caitlyn as Caitlyn today, only that we also recognize that Bruce Jenner was an Olympic athlete who later in life transitioned from being a man to a woman.
- This will be my final words on this discussion. 1) I believe that tv and film pages should reflect historical names as they were credited. If someone changes their name and are credited with that name going forward, then that name is used going forward. This is not about BLP pages, that's a different discussion. 2) We should not retroactively change anyone's credited name, regardless of them transitioning, them getting married, or them just wanting a new name (ala Meta World Peace) on anything prior to that name change. This is NOT out of disrespect, anger, or bigotry toward any person (that's why I wouldn't do it if you were gay, straight, trans, married, divorced, etc.) but out of respect for the historical content and context of the film or tv show in question. Now, I will leave with one exception to my opinion on how to handle this, and that's documented evidence of said public figure (because we're talking about public figure here, not random citizen of the country) wants all evidence of their deadname removed. They don't have to specifically ask Wikipedia, but if there is evidence that they are trying to have their deadname removed from all documents and only be reference (even from a historical context) as their current name, then I think we can respect that above foundational rules and make those changes. Cheers to all. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- My comment about "transgendered" was the first thing I said, not the last, and any moralistic overtones you see are your own interpretation, not my intention. Rather than accuse me of a personal attack, you could have simply owned up to making a small mistake and then the matter would be dropped. I do believe that a birth name no longer used can be a trauma trigger to someone who associates the name with traumatic childhood experiences, yes (I've seen it occur and I'm most certainly not a therapist of 10 years, but different experiences I guess).
- WP:BLP applies to all content about living people, not biographical articles only. I believe the examples above (Kaley Cuoco, Emily VanDerWerff, the Wachowskis) which support my opinion are of stronger relevance to television credits than your examples regarding Muhammad Ali, Caitlyn Jenner and Metta World Peace, but I understand I'm not going to change your opinion. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Input needed at Template talk:Infobox awards list
This discussion relating to the footnote displayed in Template talk:Infobox awards list has gone a week without participants. Editors of this WikiProject may be interested in commenting. – Teratix ₵ 03:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Return of the Darksaber (fictional weapon)
Talk:The_Mandalorian#RfC_regarding_Darksaber_mention_in_The_Mandalorian_plot_summary. For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Location of notes in List of Ugly Betty episodes
List of Ugly Betty episodes transcludes the episode lists from each season's article (e.g., Ugly Betty (season 1)). However, the notes at the bottom of each list are in the main List of Ugly Betty episodes article. Is there a reason I shouldn't move the notes to the individual season articles, so they appear on those pages as well, answering questions like this?
(Posted here because Talk:List of Ugly Betty episodes has been inactive for 11+ years.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Input needed at Talk:Television in the Republic of Ireland
Hello, I thought this discussion could do with some more views as it concerns quite a significant change of format that could have a knock on effect for other years in television articles. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Would this LoE article be enough to warrant being a separate article from Corn & Peg? I just recently reverted the removal of the LoE from the main article, not realizing it was because this separate LoE article was created. Based off of MOS:TVSPLIT, my guess would be no, and that it should be brought to AfD?... Magitroopa (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd merge it back, and convert it to a redirect. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Proposed split discussion at Talk:2010s in Irish television
A discussion is open at Talk:2010s in Irish television#Split proposal. Please feel free to comment. This is Paul (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Changes to project templates messed up categorization
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gonnym, Ned Scott, Sgeureka, Tom (LT), BrownHairedGirl, and Dthomsen8: As a result of the Various TV-related WikiProject templates TfD, many TV-related WikiProjects were combined into Template:WikiProject Television. This resulted in many pages winding up in many large non-existent categories found at Special:WantedCategories. Most, such as Category:NA-importance Episode coverage articles are probably an artifact of the Template:WikiProject Television template. Modifying the template to put things in existing now-empty categories may solve the problem. Renaming existing categories may be a better solution. Some "Parent" categories with now-empty but probably previously-populated sub-categories include Category:Television game shows task force articles, Category:Episode coverage task force articles, and Category:Television stations task force articles. There may be other empty categories in Special:WantedCategories not related to the 3 parent categories I listed. If there are, these will also need to be dealt with.
So, should the existing categories be renamed to match the populated non-existing ones, or should the template be modified to put pages into the existing categories? If there isn't a permanent decision soon, I recommend modifying the template on a temporary basis, it's the easier decision to undo. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 4#Unwanted side effects of template merge. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- @davidwr: Please don't revert. I strongly urge doing whatever's needed to get to the correct titles, and I haven't seen any case where the old titles are better. Most of the glitches are things like capitalisation fixes, which should be pursued rather than reverted.
- For example, the existing title Category:List-Class Scottish Television articles is clearly incorrect capitalisation (the project is Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Scottish television task force), so I have tagged all the categories for speedy renaming to the lower-case T.
- Several other sets are also listed at WP:CFDS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- This is already under discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Television#Still more needed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces (Part 2)
Following on from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Turning all inactive TV-show Wikiprojects into WP:WPTV taskforces, here is a list of more TV-show specific WikiProjects that could be converted into task forces:
Copying the statement given by User:sgeureka before:
As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Descendant WikiProjects and task forces#Show-specific projects and task forces, We now strongly recommend that new show/topic-specific WikiProjects become task forces of WP:TV. This still allows for greater focus on that show/ topic, but without having to start a whole new project from scratch. Many existing show-specific WikiProjects became projects before the concept of task forces was widely known, and many of them will become task forces in the future. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide for more info, or ask for help on WT:TV.
(emphasis mine).
- If someone thinks this move is a bad idea in general, then say so in the Discussion section below.
- If someone feels a few selected WikiProjects should not become taskforces, please mark that in the above table with
{{no X|Opposed}}, so that they can get a separate discussion at a later time. - If someone feels that WP:WPTV is not the right parent WikiProject for a certain taskforce, mark it in the above table or say so in the Discussion section below.
Discussion redux
- Support as nom. --Gonnym (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support per precedent of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/American television task force. I see all WikiProjects have already been notified. – sgeureka t•c 11:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – WP:DISNEY is marked as "semi-active", so why wasn't it included here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Possibly because its a media franchise thing, similar to WP:GIJOE before. Per WP:DISNEY, "This WikiProject will attempt to cover the various fields affiliated with Disney: movies, theme parks, merchandise, affiliated actors/actresses and the Disney Channel." TV is mentioned last. – sgeureka t•c 15:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – I'd still like to see WP:DISNEY included here, but I won't stop the others for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support, at least for WikiProject Television Stations. The work associated with the project is very active, but I'd argue the project as a construct is largely inactive (and I've been involved for more than a decade to observe the decline in activity). I can't see the harm in this change. Mlaffs (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support – WikiProject Television Stations has been semi-active for some time now and seeing how everyone of these WikiProjects cover different aspects of this WikiProject as a whole, I think it's perfectly appropriate —even necessary— to bundle these all into one single WikiProject. I've seen plenty of other WikiProjects get bundled into another WikiProject (their parent WikiProject) due to inactivity. There are too many (inactive) WikiProjects on this site which makes it so much harder to centralize discussion about a certain topic area and the only way to curtail that is the sort of proposal by Gonnym.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Almost a month of discussion. If there is no more input, I'll work on this next week. --Gonnym (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support makes a lot of sense and certainly helps keep track of things. Agree with the nom Gonnym that Disney, even if semi-active, should remain its own project--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png
A tag has been placed on File:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
copyright unused file replace by a free file file:The Mentalist 2008 Intertitle.png
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pierpao (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox television – show_name parameter
So it looks like this parameter is no longer relevant or needed, as it looks like the infobox now automatically takes the name from the page title if you leave the parameter blank or remove it entirely.
For example:
| WikiProject Television/Archive 31 |
|---|
| WikiProject Television/Archive 31 |
|---|
Amaury • 18:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Relevant discussion
There is an ongoing discussion occuring at WP:TFD which may be interests to the followers of this page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Category for "Limited series"?
With news that HBO has officially reclassified Watchmen as a limited series than drama, I made various changes and was going to tag it with a limited series category but was surprised I didn't see anything like that. I may be missing it, but if there is not one, this seems like an oversight, given this is one of the major Emmy classifications. --Masem (t) 22:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
- Here: Category:2010s American drama television miniseries. - Brojam (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
RFC
There's a RFC at Talk:Big City Greens about including writers in the infobox. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Request for comment: Should we list a prominent award in articles about another award?
Please take part in the discussion which applies to many types of awards, for film, television, theatre, etc. See Talk:Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directing – Feature Film#RfC: Indication of other awards.
Should we host indicators of prominent awards in articles about other awards, in cases where the two awards are not mentioned by a reliable source listing both? For instance, indicating Academy Awards in other film awards articles, or indicating Emmy Awards in other television awards articles, or indicating Tony Awards in other theatre awards articles. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Redlinked categories
An IP editor is moving TV series articles between categories: example. The changes seem logical but many of the category links are red. Please can someone who knows whether these categories should exist help out? Certes (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
More restrictions on List of fictional elements
I made a new discussion in WT:Notability (fiction) regarding adding more restrictions on lists regarding fictional elements such as swords, animals, profession, and so on. if anyone is interested in bringing their opinion on the topic. here.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#RfC on Steven Universe Future hatnote. The RFC concerns what template should be used above a transcluded season table on an LoE article: {{further}}, {{main}} or {{for}}. -- /Alex/21 10:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Multiple international "original" air dates
This is an issue I think I've mentioned before, but I've encountered it again and wonder if some more discussion is needed. The issue being that, with the age of international co-productions and streaming, some television shows air first in countries that are not their country of production or even their intended audience. The ones that I've dealt with are Bolívar and Killing Eve.
- Bolívar is Colombian, being produced by and for Colombia by Caracol. But it was first shown on Netflix available in all countries except Colombia, then on television in Colombia some months later. It is currently using only the Colombian dates.
- Killing Eve is British, being produced by and for Britain by Sid Gentle Films, the BBC, and BBC America. As part of the BBC America deal, it was first shown in the US and its release in the UK was pushed back several months so it was also shown in other countries, too. The episode list this time is only using the US dates.
These shows are in about the same situation, but are doing opposite things. Another show like this is Gentleman Jack, again a BBC/BBC America show, which is listing both the US and UK dates – is this the solution? Kingsif (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge about the series and only basing my response on details from the articles. The article about Killing Eve says it was produced for BBC America, which means that according to this, the only relevant dates are the BBC America ones (which are also the first broadcast ones). Gentleman Jack says it's a co-production between BBC One and HBO so both networks are valid. For Bolívar the article mentions in the development section that was co-produced by Netflix (though the infobox and lead don't mention this), which means that both networks are valid. --Gonnym (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Infobox television – Add a "num_segments" parameter
I think it would be useful to add such a parameter as many animation series and some live-action series typically run in segment format, and making episodes and segments distinct would be useful. One episode is typically two segments, unless it is a double-length special, as then it's just one segment. (Just like when a normally 30-minute series, with commercials, is 60 minutes—or sometimes more—with double-length specials.) It would be especially useful for networks that have a bad habit of not always airing all of their segments together like they should be. Instead, often times, when a new episode of an animation series airs, it's actually only the first segment that's new, with the second being a rerun. So you end up with episode #101 aired on one day, but then down the road, you have #104 split between two separate dates, with #104A on one day, and #104B on another day. For series that don't always have their segments aired together, we would only use this "num_segments" parameter. For series that always have their segments aired together, we would use both this "num_segments" parameter and the already-existing "num_episodes" parameter.
Similarly, because of this, there likely should be a new column for segments added to Template:Television season ratings, along with the option to hide both that and the number of episodes, if needed, just like we already have an option to hide the timeslot, for example. Amaury • 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
- This might not have got responses because editors don't totally understand, or don't think they know enough. Have you already asked this at WP:Animation to get some views on it there? Kingsif (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Please give specific examples of a series. Also, is this something that is usually mentioned by sources, as in "The series x broadcast 110 segments"? --Gonnym (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- This applies a lot to the animated series. And, no, it's not often mentioned in sources, though it's clear watching an episode of, say, SpongeBob SquarePants, that you're getting two, separately titled "segments" per 30-minute "episode"... As to adding the parameter, I'm neutral on the question, as I don't really find anything wrong with doing "52 episodes (96 segments)" in the
num_episodesparameter, and if there's consensus for that instead, we can just update the template documentation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 7 March 2020 (UTC)- I'd be opposed to bastardizing parameters in any form. What you suggested is that. If there is consensus to add it to the infobox, it should be added correctly. I'd still would like to see some real-world usage for this. Are there any RS that talk about the segments? Is Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants) a segment? The word "segment" is not written once in the article, yet the word "episode" is mentioned over 30 times. --Gonnym (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- It is the first segment of the premiere episode – the second segment is "Reef Blower". Notice at SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1) that each has a unique prod. code. So they're separate. The issue is that RS likely would call these "episodes", but they're broadcast together as two "segments" that make up one whole "broadcast episode". So this is usually referred to as a single 30-minute "broadcast episode" that is made up of two 15-minute-ish "segments". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Add: Notice even that WP:RSs are inconsistent on this – this EW source refers to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 12) as having "26 episodes", but if you go by "segments" there'd be twice as many of those. (Note: More confusion.) So WP:RSs are probably a mess on this issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- The main driver to this suggestion is that certain networks, like Nickelodeon, for unknown reasons don't always air their episodes' segments together for two brand new segments, or one brand new episode. (See the example I provided in my OP.) Sometimes you'll have that it's only the first segment that's actually new, while the second is a rerun. That means that you're actually only getting a half new episode instead of a full new episode. I realize we can do the whole "2 episodes (4 segments)," but adding this parameter would just make it a bit more organized, in my opinion. Plus, if you wanted to go solely by segments rather than by episodes, then if there are 26 episodes and 52 segments, it wouldn't make sense to have 52 under the "num_episodes" parameter, as that would make it seem like there were 52 episodes for a season, which would be wrong. Amaury • 17:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- One good example might be Ryan's Mystery Playdate, which recently concluded its second season. AFAIK, rare occurrence of a live-action Nickelodeon show with 'segments' involved. The series was renewed for a, "20-episode second season", but as seen through the production codes, it only goes up to "220" instead of "240" due to the "A" and "B" segments. I've definitely seen at least one instance where there was a new 'segment' airing, followed by a rerun of a different segment that's already aired before. It was also recently renewed for a third season of 20 episodes, but is already starting off with "301A" and "301B" on March 30 and 31. Magitroopa (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Magitroopa: Does any WP:RS refer to this series in terms of "segments" rather than "episodes"? Or does any WP:RS refer to "10-episode" seasons over "20 episodes"?... Just curious. (But, yeah – this is another example of what I was talking about: WP:RS schizophrenia on the issue of "broadcast episodes" vs. "segments/episodes" – WP:RS seem to be all over the map on this, and there's no consistency.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Not sure if it would even be considered a RS, but the closest would probably be this, stating, "Production on a new batch of 20-x-half-hour episodes...". On another note, the credits of episodes differ from things like SpongeBob, which in the credits, clearly state, "Cast of
"Title A"" and "Cast of"Title B"" - see here for example. Even relating to this specific episode/segment, this is from the end of "Senior Discount", which premiered on July 6, 2019. The sister segment, "Shell Games", didn't premiere in the US until just today. The segments get their first actual airing together on March 17, as per Futon Crtic.
- @IJBall: Not sure if it would even be considered a RS, but the closest would probably be this, stating, "Production on a new batch of 20-x-half-hour episodes...". On another note, the credits of episodes differ from things like SpongeBob, which in the credits, clearly state, "Cast of
- @Magitroopa: Does any WP:RS refer to this series in terms of "segments" rather than "episodes"? Or does any WP:RS refer to "10-episode" seasons over "20 episodes"?... Just curious. (But, yeah – this is another example of what I was talking about: WP:RS schizophrenia on the issue of "broadcast episodes" vs. "segments/episodes" – WP:RS seem to be all over the map on this, and there's no consistency.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- One good example might be Ryan's Mystery Playdate, which recently concluded its second season. AFAIK, rare occurrence of a live-action Nickelodeon show with 'segments' involved. The series was renewed for a, "20-episode second season", but as seen through the production codes, it only goes up to "220" instead of "240" due to the "A" and "B" segments. I've definitely seen at least one instance where there was a new 'segment' airing, followed by a rerun of a different segment that's already aired before. It was also recently renewed for a third season of 20 episodes, but is already starting off with "301A" and "301B" on March 30 and 31. Magitroopa (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to bastardizing parameters in any form. What you suggested is that. If there is consensus to add it to the infobox, it should be added correctly. I'd still would like to see some real-world usage for this. Are there any RS that talk about the segments? Is Help Wanted (SpongeBob SquarePants) a segment? The word "segment" is not written once in the article, yet the word "episode" is mentioned over 30 times. --Gonnym (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- This applies a lot to the animated series. And, no, it's not often mentioned in sources, though it's clear watching an episode of, say, SpongeBob SquarePants, that you're getting two, separately titled "segments" per 30-minute "episode"... As to adding the parameter, I'm neutral on the question, as I don't really find anything wrong with doing "52 episodes (96 segments)" in the
- With RMP, credits don't differentiate between the two parts/segments. Here is from the credits of "Ryan's Wild West Playdate/Ryan's Stringy Playdate", which you can clearly tell which person is from which segment based on just looking at the titles (Cowboy is from "Wild West", and Yo-yo pro is from "Stringy"), but the credits don't exactly state it like cartoons such as SpongeBob do. Magitroopa (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Aren't they just episodes broadcast in blocks of two? Because calling them 'segments' suggests that they do actually relate to each other, rather than have completely different and separate stories. Like, you know, block booking. Doesn't seem unusual to me, leave it as episodes. Kingsif (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's the point. The segments are from the same episodes, but often end up aired separately, as explained in my OP. Instead of 106 airing on February 29, we'll have 106A air *new* with a rerun of 104A on February 29 and then 106B air *new* with a rerun of 101A on March 7. That's the problem. Disney Channel is much better on this, as they never separate segments. When they air a new episode for an animated series, both of its segments will be brand new. For whatever reason, Nickelodeon will go back and forth and will have patterns like this (bold = new): 101, 102, 103, 104A/101B, 108B/102A, 107, 105B/103A, 115, 112, 119, and so on. Amaury • 19:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
List of Episodes
Just dropping the same thing here that I left on the talk page of MOS:TV but got no response. It was my understanding that a list of episodes was useful as long as contained sourced information such as air dates and episode titles. Am I wrong in thinking this? See relevant discussion at Talk:Live PD: Roll Call and page history of Live PD: Roll Call, just dealing with two editors there who don't seem to generally deal with TV articles. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- The truth is, while scripted TV series will often justify separate List of Episodes (LoE) or Season articles – as they'll contain not just episode "plots", but often other info such as on production (and/or (critical) reception, esp. for Season articles) – the same is not always true of unscripted TV series, especially documentary programs and talk shows. Talk shows, especially, really do not justify LoE type articles, as there really isn't any relevant info to list... So, arguably, if an episode table/list contains nothing more than episode titles and air dates (even if sourced), it could be considered WP:INDISCRIMINATE enough to justify not including or not having a separate LoE article (even for multi-season TV shows). That really would have to be discussed on a TV show article-by-article basis. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Add: FWIW, I do think the 'series overview' table should be restored to Live PD: Roll Call even if the episode tables aren't – the series overview table is clearly relevant info (esp. if sourced somewhere in the article). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I brought the discussion here because as I previously said I was dealing with two not so polite editors over there. The series overview table can be sourced through TFC which according to one of them (it was said somewhere at one point)
is not a reliable source
. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)- That's nonsense – TFC is definitely a WP:RS. (This reminds of the discussion of 3–4 years ago where someone tried to claim that Deadline Hollywood "wasn't a WP:RS" for TV series info!!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, this (from a long time ago, when TFC was "newer") and this (from more recently) is what WP:RSN has to say on the subject – no one is seriously challenging the idea that TFC is reliable for production info. And as their info is generally directly from press releases from the networks/studios involved themselves, it seems rather ridiculous to challenge their credibility on factual info like air dates and episode titles!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- I brought the discussion here because as I previously said I was dealing with two not so polite editors over there. The series overview table can be sourced through TFC which according to one of them (it was said somewhere at one point)
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/The Twilight Zone task force#Merge the '80s episode articles? I raised a question (linking here due to that project being believed to be inactive): Are there any other cases of parts of episodes having their own articles, as opposed to whole episodes? Ribbet32 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Amazon for air dates
For some of the older cartoons, it's difficult to find accurate airdates. Is Amazon.com a WP:RS for these? I am not sure how they get their dates.
Example: Oh Yeah! Cartoons EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion it's better than nothing. So even if it isn't the best source, it should be used until someone finds a better one. --Gonnym (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
TV Tropes template
{{TV Tropes}} has been nominated for deletion. As it falls within the purview of this WikiProject, your input is requested. Please join in the discussion here. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Sky Studios confusion
Through the years, Sky has become one of the largest telco companies in Europe and it is now part of Comcast, an American group. The article Sky Studios refers to a campus in London where most of daytime and news programming is produced for UK audiences. However, last year Comcast founded Sky Studios, a European production company dedicated to overseeing all Sky Original productions in the UK, Ireland, Germany, Austria and Italy, especially Sky Atlantic's. As a result, the article should be renamed to Sky Centre or Sky Campus. There is a discussion here: Talk:Sky Studios#Article direction. I was wondering if anyone had opinions on how to procede with this situation and how to structure the new article. Thanks. --TheVampire (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Template deletion discussion
Template:TV Fool has been nominated for deletion. As it is in the purview of this WikiProject, your input is requested here. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
What's the temperature on guest roles and appearances on reality shows in filmographies?
Hey there, Ravensfire and I have been experiencing, I believe, an uptick in the addition of guest roles and reality show appearances in actor filmographies. I'd like take the the community's temperature on whether this is the intended use of the filmography table, or if we should be tracking their artistic performances here. An example can be found here.
Also, does the community have an official stance on tracking appearances on talk shows? I've seen these added a lot. And generally speaking, I'm concerned that this inflation of actor achievements is intended to make the actor look more prominent than they are, especially in a world where undisclosed paid editors are running marketing campaigns for some of these people. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion before, and talk show appearances should definitely not be included as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and basically WP:TRIVIA) – guest-hosting a talk show would certainly be appropriate to list, but not a simple guest appearance on a talk show... In terms of reality shows, appearing as a contestant is worth listing, appearing as a guest judge is probably OK to list, but just a random cameo appearance on such a show would also not be worth listing... Note that the other problem with your example above is that this Filmography table flagrantly violates MOS:ACCESS with completely inappropriate use of 'rowspan' which is clearly contrary to MOS:FILMOGRAPHY as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Additional to the Tracker article. One of them he wasn't even on the show. Just one of the celebs invited to be in the audience. - X201 (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Boy, it's hard to remember all of the discussions where the community decides stuff. If only there were some sort of Manual of Style where the community's preferences could be recorded. I'm making light, but I've noticed increased community resistance to making changes to the MOS, when we could be avoiding fruitless repetitive discussions. Thanks for your response above and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Out of interest, where do panel shows stand in all this? Does the answer maybe differ if the person in question is well-known as a comedian or if there are multiple appearances? For instance, I'd say Lily Allen's appearance on Would I Lie to You? is trivia, but Victoria Coren Mitchell's are significant. — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd say in the context of those kinds of shows, the number of appearances is probably a significant metric. In the case of someone like Lily Allen, mention of the appearance would be more appropriate in the prose than in the Filmography table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- Out of interest, where do panel shows stand in all this? Does the answer maybe differ if the person in question is well-known as a comedian or if there are multiple appearances? For instance, I'd say Lily Allen's appearance on Would I Lie to You? is trivia, but Victoria Coren Mitchell's are significant. — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Sources in the plot section
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Plot summaries. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Cross-network crossover
Today, Tracy Spiridakos's character Detective Hailey Upton from NBC's Chicago P.D. (TV series) appeared on CBS' FBI (TV series). Both shows were created by Dick Wolf. How unusual is a cross-network crossover.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- If it's produced by the same studios/people I'd say it's more likely than if it isn't. It's definitely less likely than a same-network crossover but it happened not to long ago with Supergirl when it still aired on CBS at the time while the rest of the rest of the Arrowverse aired on The CW TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
- There's also John_Munch#Appearances_and_crossovers which if I'm reading it right it appears this actor appeared as the same character on NBC, HBO, UPN, Fox, and ABC; specifically
Munch has become the only fictional character, played by a single actor, to physically appear on 10 different television series. These shows were on five different networks: NBC (Homicide: Life on the Street, Law & Order, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Law & Order: Trial by Jury, and 30 Rock); Fox (The X-Files and Arrested Development); UPN (The Beat); HBO (The Wire) and ABC (Jimmy Kimmel Live!). Munch has been one of the few television characters to cross genres, appearing not only in crime drama series, but sitcom (Arrested Development), late night comedy (Jimmy Kimmel Live!) and horror and science fiction (The X-Files).
to be specific. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC) - Now that I'm thinking about it, if you expand this outside of the U.S. it happens as well. Specifically thinking of the Doctor Who universe multiple Torchwood characters appeared on Doctor Who and visa versa while DW aired on BBC One and TW aired on BBC Three then BBC Two before eventually moving to One. Same thing with DW and The Sarah Jane Adventures which aired on CBBC as well as DW and Class which aired on BBC iPlayer. With all respect these shows all at least aired on BBC owned networks but they are technically different. Although John Leeson did voice K9 (character) on DW, SJA, and K9+C which aired on BBC Networks as well as in K9 (TV series) which was NOT a BBC-owned show and did NOT air on a BBC-owned network, AND originated in a different country, so I guess that one technically counts. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
About Ratings guidelines for simulcasts
One Day at a Time's season 4 is being simulcast on Pop TV, Logo TV, and TVLand. Is appropriate to include ratings of all 3 of the simulcasts or just the original network (Pop TV) ratings on episodes and ratings tables? — YoungForever(talk) 15:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- In the article prose? Yes, it would be appropriate to mention the ratings for all three networks. In the episodes and ratings tables? There, the ratings for only the "primary" network (which I think is Pop) should be listed, though optionally, a 'note' can be included mentioning the ratings for the other two networks. But for apples-to-apples comparisons, the ratings values in the table should always be for the "primary" network. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I have never seen all simulcasts ratings in the episodes and ratings tables on any TV series articles before. I only seen the primary network ratings on them, but with "Note" on the other networks (non-primary networks) on some cases. On many cases, the "Note" wasn't even there, but just mentioned on the article prose. — YoungForever(talk) 19:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- Which I think is what I said – that an inline 'Note" about the simulcast ratings attached to the ratings figure for the "primary" network would be fine... Honestly, I've almost never seen this with a TV series. There's a note at List of Henry Danger episodes#ep66 which is sort of similar to what I'm thinking of. But the only example of this that I can really come up with is Descendants 2 at List of Disney Channel original films#Highest-rated Disney Channel Original Movie (DCOM) premieres, but even there we ended up discussing it in prose. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I have never seen all simulcasts ratings in the episodes and ratings tables on any TV series articles before. I only seen the primary network ratings on them, but with "Note" on the other networks (non-primary networks) on some cases. On many cases, the "Note" wasn't even there, but just mentioned on the article prose. — YoungForever(talk) 19:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Input requested for using "show" vs "episode"
Over at Talk:A God Walks into Abar (one of the Watchmen show/episodes), there's an issue of whether to refer to it as a "show" or "episode". Input from here is requested. --Masem (t) 05:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Devs (miniseries)#"has" vs. "had" and date for RT and Meta scores . — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Proposal to deprecate Infobox:television parameter
I've made a proposal at Template talk:Infobox television to deprecate "show_name" in favour of "name" in the infobox. More information is provided at the discussion. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Tense
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Review aggregators#Tense . — YoungForever(talk) 14:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Killing Eve season 3 release and ratings
Crossposted from articles:
As season 3 of Killing Eve is being aired first in the UK (unlike the other two seasons, which aired first in the US), will the ratings table be using the British figures instead? (The episodes are being released on the same day in the UK and US, but the time difference puts the UK naturally ahead). Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since it's the same day for both, you could add both if they are available and format it similar to how List of Sherlock episodes does it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Category rename proposal
I've just become aware of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television programs which proposes merging Category:Television programs and Category:Television series to Category:Television shows. Input at the discussion would be welcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. A bit strange that a very top level category is was being discussed without any input from TV article editors. --Gonnym (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it was strange. I happened across the discussion by accident. It really could do with input from more editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Including season appearances in the Elite (TV series) cast list
I follow this page (Elite (TV series)), and there's at least one edit every day that changes/adds/removes the "(season 1)" etc. to every entry on the cast list. This seems motivated by the announcement that season 4 will have "an all new cast", even though some of the previous cast make appearances in previews. There needs to be some decision to stop this, or the article is going to continue to be really unstable until it's released.
Given that another Netflix Spain and Latin America original (The House of Flowers (TV series)) also announced "an all new cast" (for its third season) but is actually keeping its entire previous cast and just adding enough actors it's the equivalent of a new cast, there is no certainty as to who is going to be in Elite's season 4, so my preference would to be not include the season appearances, but options:
- Do not include speculative season appearances in the cast list
- Include only cast appearances up to season 3 (without any of the 'so far' that has been added before)
- Include all cast appearances, including speculation for season 4 from sources
Please discuss below :) Kingsif (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- One answer is to wait until season #4 is released and then update cast lists then. However, I don't see how that would have any bearing on any cast that was only there in season #1 – those should be able to be marked with "(season 1)" as of now.... But I don't think I'd bother with the (seasons ...–3) until season #4 is actually released. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much this. We don't have to wait until the fourth season is released because it's obvious from those characters not appearing in the second and third seasons that they were only in the first season. Amaury • 21:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- So you both think that "(season 1)" is fine, but that any characters beyond that shouldn't have any? Wouldn't that look a bit strange since there's only one main character who only appears in season 1 (ignoring the archive footage in 2 and 3)? Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- What I think we're saying is putting in any of "(season 1)", "(seasons 1–2)" and "(season 2)" as of now should be fine. But I think the "(seasons 1–3)" and "(seasons 2–3)" ones should be held off until season #4 is released. Because there many be other ways to handle that (e.g. like separate casts sections/lists for the seasons 1–3 cast and the season 4+ cast, in which case the "(seasons 1–3)" cases wouldn't need to be marked out that way...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- So you both think that "(season 1)" is fine, but that any characters beyond that shouldn't have any? Wouldn't that look a bit strange since there's only one main character who only appears in season 1 (ignoring the archive footage in 2 and 3)? Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pretty much this. We don't have to wait until the fourth season is released because it's obvious from those characters not appearing in the second and third seasons that they were only in the first season. Amaury • 21:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
TV.com
I've added TV.com to WP:TVRS as an unreliable source. It is WP:USERGeraged content per its own About page. This was a WP:BOLD edit, so let me know if anyone disagrees. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes – TV.com is another one that's been left as fine for an 'External link', but should absolutely not be used as an inline source. Pretty much just like IMDb. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's pretty straighforward that TV.com is not a reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 01:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like the regulars around here to take a look at this and determine whether it meets our guidelines for a standalone episode article. I am... skeptical. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like there's some coverage of it as its own episode. But it does need more sources and a much shorter plot section at least. Kingsif (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of the so-called "coverage" looks to be blogs and the like – if you trim that out, I doubt there's enough independent coverage of this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that - not all of the sources are necessarily strong ones, but removing the blogs wouldn't affect the article at all - they are only sourcing the plot or things that have other sources. The Uproxx ranking based on IMDb might not be seen as valuable info, and the Angel Fire source is also generally unreliable, so unless it's used to show an excerpt of Ireland's book as primary source, all of that should probably be removed. Besides the blogs and Angel Fire, there's only the dubious nature of Fox News to contend with... which would take out nearly everything about Ireland, actually. Yes, it probably would be one line of production and whatever is left of the reception. I agree, not enough for its own article. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- A lot of the so-called "coverage" looks to be blogs and the like – if you trim that out, I doubt there's enough independent coverage of this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Long plot
Hello, if someone can make the user Monidee understand that the plot of that article is too long, it would be good. Maybe me i have no patience. But the plot of the article El clon is very long, and i don't know how to explain. Bradford Talk 17:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi fellow editors,
I need some pairs of eyes on the article. An ip address have repeatedly add WP:SYNTH which is considered to be WP:OR despite several warnings. — YoungForever(talk) 22:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Probably a case for WP:AIV Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: I don't think that would count as vandalism though. — YoungForever(talk) 06:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
(Film) plot summary assistance
Hi guys, I've been running the film article Being Impossible through the GA process, but we have hit an issue that will take some help to resolve (where TV can help): I made the article before the release and was hoping that I would be able to add a full plot summary (if nobody beat me to it) when the film came out last year. For a variety of reasons, the film's release in different countries got pushed back to this year, so it's not been very lucky. HBO have got the film available on VOD - in the US. Neither the GA reviewer nor myself are both in the US and have a HBO subscription, so if anybody here is in the US with HBO and would be willing to watch an interesting film to give a plot summary, we would be very grateful! Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Standalone article Marie Schrader re-created
Looking for AFC review.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Consensus request to create the Money Heist Awards article
Currently the Netflix TV series already has 28 awards nominations. Of the 176 existing television series awards articles, only considering D's letter, the following five had fewer or slightly higher nominations.
- List of awards and nominations received by Bates Motel (29)
- List of awards and nominations received by Big Love (26)
- List of awards and nominations received by Carnivàle (33)
- List of awards and nominations received by Dharma & Greg (23)
- List of awards and nominations received by Doctor Doctor (21)
I ask you, what is the minimum number of awards nominations needed to have an independent article? --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kasper2006: All of the Doctor Doctor, Dharma & Greg and Big Love awards lists look too short to justify standalone articles, and should be merged back to their parent articles (and probably merged back into a single table, where applicable)... However, the Bates Hotel one looks like it's probably long enough to justify a standalone article (though the article massively violates MOS:ACCESS with its horrible use of rowspan, and so needs to be "cleaned up"). The Carnivàle should be delisted as a WP:FL IMO, as it is nowhere near adequately sourced – if you ignore that part, it looks like it's borderline justified as a standalone article... So, based on this, I'd say the "cutoff" should probably be approximately 30 or more separate awards/nominations. If a series only has about 20–25 awards/nominations, it shouldn't be a standalone article (see also MOS:TVSPLIT). So, in the specific case of Money Heist, I wouldn't split out the awards into a separate article just yet... Just one member of WP:TV's opinion, FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I was not clear. I took for example 4 out of 26 letters of the alphabet (up to D), to show that already at this point 5 articles were smaller the one that was deleted. If I continued, I could have found 35 in total. So you have to tell me how many nominations are needed, because if this number is 28, we cannot delete 35 articles because they have deleted mine. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to ping Brojam into comment here, as they were the one that reverted your split attempt. But all I can tell you is that I agree with Brojam that, in this case, a standalone 'awards' article is not merited in the case of Money Heist at this time (that may change in another season or two...). And my point is that, of your 5 examples above, at least 3 of those also do not qualify for standalone articles either, and also should be merged back to their parent articles. So I don't even think there's an inconsistency here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Most of the examples listed above should be merged back. Personally, I think a good number to split would be more like 50-60 nominations, but I know some in this community think it should be even higher. It would be good if we could provide more info at MOS:TVRECEPTION about awards tables and lists (similar to WP:FILMCRITICLIST) instead of a basic 9-word sentence. Not sure if we would be able to come to a consensus on a specific number in order to split, but at least providing some additional guidance would help. - Brojam (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to ping Brojam into comment here, as they were the one that reverted your split attempt. But all I can tell you is that I agree with Brojam that, in this case, a standalone 'awards' article is not merited in the case of Money Heist at this time (that may change in another season or two...). And my point is that, of your 5 examples above, at least 3 of those also do not qualify for standalone articles either, and also should be merged back to their parent articles. So I don't even think there's an inconsistency here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- @IJBall: I was not clear. I took for example 4 out of 26 letters of the alphabet (up to D), to show that already at this point 5 articles were smaller the one that was deleted. If I continued, I could have found 35 in total. So you have to tell me how many nominations are needed, because if this number is 28, we cannot delete 35 articles because they have deleted mine. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the length and coverage of the main article, here Money Heist needs to be taken into account - it's already got its episodes and cast list in separate articles, and is still quite long. Presuming there's some prose about the awards, a separate awards article is warranted in this case. Kingsif (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's really not – the article's current awards sections is nowhere near to "unbalancing" the article. We really need to get away from the idea of "splitting just because we can". There really needs to be a compelling reason to split out content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's obviously not the longest section of the article, but it's a more logical split than other parts, and a decent article about its awards, accolades, 'best-of' ratings can be written that would be too long for the main article - expanding out rather than just splitting. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- The other splits you did for the cast and characters and songs used in the series don't warrant splits either, since the former is a complete copy of what's in the main article (you should have waited till the draft that has been started was complete and ready to move to the mainspace) and the latter is a trivial list. The Money Heist article currently has 40 kB (6728 words) of readable prose size, which per WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:SIZERULE does not justify splitting it to another article alone. Also, anything about ratings would not be included in a list of awards article. - Brojam (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's obviously not the longest section of the article, but it's a more logical split than other parts, and a decent article about its awards, accolades, 'best-of' ratings can be written that would be too long for the main article - expanding out rather than just splitting. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's really not – the article's current awards sections is nowhere near to "unbalancing" the article. We really need to get away from the idea of "splitting just because we can". There really needs to be a compelling reason to split out content. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I point out that now the nominations are 61 and the article (Draft:List of awards and nominations received by Money Heist) is 15.731 bytes. Do you think that we can split now? --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- I thank the users who participated in this discussion for allowing me to understand how and when to split (i.e. when a considerable number of awards is reached and when the new article is quite full-bodied even with prose). I myself, first I expanded the section in "Money Heist", then I completed the number of awards and nominations received, bringing it from 28 to 61, also the article is now 15,745 bytes and I am still expanding it. I then removed the redirect and entered the "see also" in the "Money Heist" section. As I said at the beginning, unfortunately many of the 176 articles in the category contain few awards, I believe that now the article I created falls into 20% of the most full-bodied (i.e. 80% of the 176 are smaller than this). Obviously for correctness in the talk I inserted the template that the article was partially copied from the section in "Money Heist". --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
A categorization issue
Happened to come across someone adding the cat Category:Films with screenplays by Peter Gould (writer) to a Better Call Saul ep, which caused me to blink a few times and realize that mid-last year the Film project had asked to move, in bulk "Category:Screenplays by..." to "Category:Films with screenplays by...". Not necessarily a major problem for them, but it does make television episodes now stand out being in there as no one calls a TV episode a film. Unfortunately all the category intersection tools aren't working right now so I can't figure out how many television episode this affects.
There's probably some decisions about whether the script of a TV should be considered a screenplay, but I would think there should be distinction that for a given writer that has done both film and tv, between those two works. --Masem (t) 01:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- While the article for screenplay says its for
a film, television program, or video game
, a more correct general term would be "script". Scripts specifically for television can be called teleplays and for theater stage plays. Screenplays even if officially can be for other types of media, are commonly used for films only. --Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Dynasty (2017 TV series) episodes#20 Versus 22 Episodes for Season 3 . — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Infobox television season formatting and visual change
Hi all. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television season#Format adjustments to deal with title wrap and a new parameter in hopes of implementing changes that will alter the way Infobox television season is visually formatted. Please head over there to join the discussion. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- These changes have been implemented. If you come across any articles presenting information incorrectly, please start a discussion on the template's talk page so it can be addressed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
List of American Dad! episodes
Some conflict has occurred at List of American Dad! episodes regarding recently aired episodes and whether they belong in season 16 or season 17. As a result, the article(s) have started to become a bit of a mess and adiitional input by experienced editors would be helpful. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion really could do with some extra input. The situation is that 3 episodes with production codes for last season have aired recently. The TBS website says that the 1st and 3rd episodes are episodes 21 and 22 of last season while the 2nd is the first episode of the most recent season, which is somewhat strange. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- The issue of the shows seasons numbering has also been issue with conflicting sides. Rodent Zuna (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings (TV series)#"related to" vs "based on". For context, Amazon has bought the rights to The Lord of the Rings books and are making a television series based on those books, but set before the events of the books. They only have the rights to the LOTR books and cannot use any other Middle-earth books as source material for the series. There are a whole bunch of reliable sources supporting these facts in The Lord of the Rings (TV series), including someone who worked on the series and has clearly explained the situation. The dispute is that several editors know a lot about Middle-earth and have decided that if the series is set before the LOTR books then they cannot be based on those books and must be based on other books. Anyone wishing to contribute their thoughts to this discussion is welcome. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why don't you just say "adapted from"?! That's more accurate that "based on"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- I would be fine with that, but the other editors don't want to mention the LOTR books at all, they want to say it is based on other works by Tolkien but there is no source to support that. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Template talk:Television season ratings#Entire season
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Television season ratings#Entire season. -- /Alex/21 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- The base scenario and question is this: At Just Roll with It#Ratings, {{Television season ratings}} uses partial counts; i.e. counting episodes that have aired so far in Season 2 and listing an average of only those episodes. Should the template use partial episode counts and averages, or wait for a episode count and average for the entire season? -- /Alex/21 02:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's standard practice to leave season averages blank until the season concludes and then finding a reliable source that lists the season average. See the infobox for The Big Bang Theory as an example. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
RfC: Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title?
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.
No consensus to overturn current policy - While posting notices to other discussion pages may be helpful to neutrally advertise a discussion, per WP:CANVASS, that doesn't necessarily mean, of itself, that this local discussion may overturn policy. This very scenario is listed as an example at Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels_of_consensus. Low turnout + local consensus = No consensus to overturn current policy. - jc37 22:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Should episode article titles default to the broadcaster's official title? czar 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Survey
- Official names only. Whether that's per broadcaster listings or title card, that's another kettle of fish to deal with; this particular RFC concerns the episode's official name over some sort of perceived "common name". If every episode guide lists an episode by its name, then that's automatically it's common name. For example, the finale of Arrow will reside at Fadeout (Arrow), not "Arrow finale episode". There is only one consensus-backed article (that I know of) that uses some form of "common name", and that went through three different titles and a firm consensus formed through discussion; tens of thousands of episode articles use their article title. Who is who to say what a common name is? If someone believes an episode article should exist at a different location then its official name, then they should be holding an RM for it. -- /Alex/21 04:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Official We should not use "names of convenience" for episodes. Yes, many TV episodes nowadays bury the title, perhaps not even in the episode proper, and so you'll get common-speak calling something the "finale". COMMONNAME doesn't mean to go that far into the "lay person slang", but instead what reliable sources say, and most TV RSes will mention the official title. --Masem (t) 04:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Official Once an official name is found, that name should be used. It may be desirable to add a redirect from a common name of the episode to the official name. --Enos733 (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Official names - I really don't have a lot to add to what Alex or Masem said, except that the nom makes an argument as if the "common name" is not the official title. This is a false dichotomy, as in fact the official title is used by every source talking about the episode - from the episode itself, official sources, TV guides, databases, reviewers and award nominations. --Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Official names per Alex 21 with his emphasis of "Whether that's per broadcaster listings or title card, that's another kettle of fish to deal with". – sgeureka t•c 08:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Generally, official, with the observation that sometimes the official name is not well known, perhaps unknown - consider An Unearthly Child, The Daleks and The Edge of Destruction to take just three examples from the 1963-66 period of Doctor Who. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Follow Wikipedia:Article titles. Generally, this will mean the official name anyway. But there will always be exceptions, which is what Wikipedia:Article titles already anticipates. For example, perhaps the first episode of a series may be officially named Pilot but may in the future take on another name or there may be an alternate title that is more descriptive and more commonly used. --Bsherr (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- No/Follow Wikipedia:Article titles and use common name per the "finale" example discussed below. The official name makes sense when there is no other name of convenience for an episode (over something like S#E# titling, although I do think that warrants a separate discussion), but when few actual sources invoke that official name, I think we do our readers a disservice by failing the principle of least astonishment—no reader is searching for the Mr. Robot finale as "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot". Not looking to convince this group at this point, but I am quite surprised at this local consensus for a policy exception. (not watching, please
{{ping}}) czar 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC) - Official names, in nearly all cases (and instances where there is a an episode title card, it should be that). Bsherr's example of TV episode pilots is a special case: a TV "pilot" is an episode type, not an actual "title", so that's a whole different issue. (IOW, some TV pilots do have actual titles, but many do not, and so are just called "Pilot" – but it's not an episode "title" per se...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Episode title discussion
- For background, this was asserted in a discussion above (#Episode titles) and has been asserted by the same quoted editor on other talk pages, but is not reflected in WP:NCTV. I would like to see formal consensus that this is indeed the rule so that WP:NCTV can be updated accordingly. On its face, this rule seems to me incompatible with WP policy, which prefers the "common name" used in most sources:
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five [article titles naming] criteria ...
— Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names (policy) a.k.a. WP:COMMONNAME
When asked, the only guidance I've seen about defaulting to official titles has been:People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.
— Wikipedia:Official names (explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy)
But this does not go as far as to assert that the official title overrides the "common name" and even though it is meant to paraphrase WP:NCTV, that page makes no such assertion either.If an article does not already exist with the name of the television show, episode title, or character name for which you are trying to create an article, then simply use the name of the subject as the article title (e.g. Carnivàle, Pauline Fowler or "Cape Feare").
— Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Naming conventions (MOS:TV guideline)
- Aside from having to reconcile policy incompatibility, if the RfC closes as "yes", it would additionally mean that we default to using title cards and/or broadcaster listings for our articles' titles rather than whatever the episode is most commonly known as in the sources. czar 01:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think that the example used is not as cut and dry as what the question is about. The question about "official" vs. "common name" typically was not meant to be a battle between a "written number" or the numerical value of said number (e.g., "Part One" vs. "Part 1"). That, to me, is arguing over the taste of a tomato. It's still a tomato. I would think that finding sources that say "Part One" or "Part 1" has more to do with their use of grammatical rules than a "common name" usage. What common name was intended for was things like Madonna or Borat, who have official names (or legal names) but that's not their common name. As such, I would say that the "official" name should be used in a case of spelling or listing a number. In general though, it should be common name. Otherwise, that above arguments about "official" would be arguing that we move Borat to Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
- For those who are saying that the official and common names are the same, I have counter-evidence.
- The article formerly known as Mr. Robot finale was forcibly renamed as "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot", based on the official names of the double-episode finale. Here is an accounting of the article's sources and how they refer to the episode:
- No mention of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles: New York Times, CNN, TV Guide, Rolling Stone, Deadline, Entertainment Weekly, Showbuzz Daily, TVLine, Paste, Complex, Bustle, Engadget
- Single mention of "whoami" or "Hello, Elliot" titles: IGN, Hollywood Reporter, Vulture (not in prose, in headline but not even invoked as the title), AV Club (not in prose, only in callout), Vox (not in prose, only in URL slug)
- All sources introduce and repeatedly refer to the episodes as "the finale" and many refer to them as "S4 E12"/13.
- There is no reasonably way to conclude that the broadcaster's official title is the "common name" for this episode/topic. There should be no reason why a reader would expect to find the article about the finale at "whoami" and "Hello, Elliot". (not watching, please
{{ping}}) czar 23:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)- Czar, you have absolutely no editorial support for your position of using the common name. The consensus is clear: stop beating a dead horse. -- /Alex/21 05:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 31#RfC: Should episode article titles default to the_broadcaster's official title? because the proposal to use official names rather than common names appears to go against the article title policy, Wikipedia:Article titles. (It may be useful to read Wikipedia:Official names to get some detail on the aspect of the policy impacted by this discussion.) The discussion had been archived, so it is possible that this WikiProject will not be enacting the proposed decision. However, if participants in this WikiProject wish to amend article title policy in order to prefer official titles over commonly used ones, then, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope", the matter needs to be raised at Wikipedia talk:Article titles in order to get broader consensus. Until broader consensus has been reached, and a specific amendment found for television programmes, it would be appropriate that article titles should continue to conform to standard policy: SilkTork (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is the exact opposite of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The nom, which was in favour of AT and could have opened this RfC anywhere, decided to open it here, and followed WP:PROPOSAL by nofiying relevent pages including Talk:Whoami and Hello, Elliot#Title, WP:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, WP:Naming conventions (television), WP:Article titles, and WP:Village pump (policy). The RfC was left open for over 2 months and resulted in a clear consensus. The fact that more editors didn't involve themselves in this discussion is on them. Moving the goalposts after a result does not fit with your opinions is not how things are handled. --Gonnym (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- No need to be sorry or to feel I am moving the goalpost because I'm not objecting to the proposal, nor am I supporting it. I am here to bring appropriate closure to the discussion one way or the other. There needs to be a discussion on the policy page which is impacted. What you have at the moment is a local agreement on the matter which you can take forward to the policy page. If nobody involved here wishes to take the matter forward then you don't have broad consensus, and someone will likely make an objection at a future date unless you get stronger consensus. If you'd like to have that broad consensus (or, to put it another way, confirm the consensus on this page) it needs to be ratified at AT. Would you like me to do that for you? No goalposts are being moved - it's the same goal you've aiming for. SilkTork (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have set up the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#RfC:_Official_title_v_commonname_for_television_episodes. SilkTork (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Multi-camera, single-camera, sourcing?
- Becker (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- NDfan173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In the infobox of each TV series is a "Production" area where it indicates if it is "multi-camera" or not. This does not seem to sport a reliable secondary source in many, if not most, cases. Where is this information sourced, and can we cite the source, so that edits such as this can conform to WP:CATV which requires both support in the article and a citation to a reliable source per WP:V? Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, this, for one. I'd also guess that it's quite possible to find contemporaneous sources that refer to Becker as a multi-camera sitcom. Basically, any sitcom with a laugh track/live audience is certainly multi-cam, so any source that talks about these kinds of sitcoms will also probably include examples. You just have to find such articles from the era. But, anyway, such sources should exist. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
An issue on this last season The Walking Dead
This is related to The Walking Dead (season 10) and The Tower (The Walking Dead). The 10th season was to be 16 episode, 16 were filmed, but when COVID hit, the 16th and final episode planned had not finished post production, so AMC announced that "The Tower", the 15th episode, would serve as the season finale and the 16th episode to air as a special later in 2020.
The wording used in the various announcements had created problems in how to describe "The Tower" which had taken place here [3], but to summarize: Some sources suggest that AMC considers with the airing of "The Tower" that the season is over and thus "The Tower" would appear to be the "season finale", but other AMC sources say that the 16th episode is the "season finale" that will air later.
I think some of this needs to come from (as I believe) understanding that there's the actual "television season" that works like the fiscal year in business terms, here being for union contracts and the like, running from Sept to the next August. If the 16th episode doesn't air in the 2019-20 television season but the 20-21 season, then things like royalty rates/etc. will be based on that season. So for purposes of this accounting, "The Tower" has to be serve as the "television season" finale since they can't promise when the 16th episode will be airing. Whereas there is the narrative "season" of which these 16 episodes were to belong to, and if/when the DVD is released, will be a part of, and the 16th episode the finale of that.
Normally this is never a problem, the television and the narrative season align and we don't have to worry about that difference. But the situation here has led to edit warring of how to call "The Tower" given the inconsistency in AMC's own wording on this mattrer. --Masem (t) 21:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think the whole television schedule thing only really refers to broadcast networks (like NBC, CBS, Fox, etc.) not cable networks like AMC. They don't really have "television seasons" in the same way broadcast networks do, where seasons generally air September to May. Shows on cable networks begin and end basically whenever. To the main point though: it should be left as in for now and once the episode airs, we can see how AMC officially bills the episode. The official website is quite clear with the statement "Season Finale Later This Year" on the main banner and they refer to episode 16 as the "season 10 finale" in the video labeled "Sneak Peek of Season 10 Finale: Maggie's Return". Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- But cable shows still have actors and crews that are on union and follow union rules (eg : [4] shows how rates go up each year). It's why they have these designations. --Masem (t) 23:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not really relevant here.. the actors and crews filmed the episode with the rest of the season.. only the post production people are still working on it.. seems pretty clear that this episode is the season finale.. whenever it airs. Spanneraol (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- But cable shows still have actors and crews that are on union and follow union rules (eg : [4] shows how rates go up each year). It's why they have these designations. --Masem (t) 23:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Council of Dads (TV series)#Requested move 5 May 2020. — YoungForever(talk) 15:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist#Lead material
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Zoey's Extraordinary Playlist#Lead material. — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Assessment requests
Just a reminder to everyone that Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment#Requesting an assessment gets a slow but steady stream of requests for (re-)rating articles qualities and importances. I've been monitoring the page since... um... 2014, and the only person to answer a request since September 2017. I really enjoy doing these, but I think it'd be good for the page to get a wider community input. More requests for assessments are welcome too! — Bilorv (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Secondary character standalone articles for The Office American series
Recently, I've noticed an issue with quite a few of the various pages on secondary characters in The Office (American TV series). There is no real-world notability established in any of these articles unless the character was introduced in later seasons. Honestly, I think most of these articles are not encyclopedic and should be merged into List of The Office (American TV series) characters with a paragraph summary at most for each of them. Wikipedia isn't the place for the bloated fancruft nonsense discussing every single character relationship in articles like Jan Levinson, Stanley Hudson, or Kevin Malone, so these should really be merged into the list of characters article.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 00:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Agree MapReader (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thirded. Articles on characters should be primarily based on real-world context, the most important part being depth of critical coverage about the character and not just the show in general. Secondary characters are generally not notable and I think articles like the ones you highlight can be boldly merged into the List of characters page. — Bilorv (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would honestly say we merge most, if not all, of the secondary character articles. 99% of them are entirely plot summary. QueerFilmNerdtalk 22:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The screenshot File:I wont not use no double negatives.jpg, taken from The Simpsons episode, is discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 3, to which I invite you. --George Ho (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
tvaholics blog as Reliable source?
Looks like tvaholics.blogspot.com is used as a reference in many TV articles, about 320.
Thing is, this site doesn't seem to be a reliable source. It's self-published anonymously, with no author or owner names. When it does offer a reference, the reference is often a scan of a Neilsen ratings column in a USA Today newspaper (here for example). The scans are systematically republished, and an apparent copyright violation.
There's the obvious WP:RSSELF problem. But the blogspot site requests contributions and has lots of advertising, so I worry about WP:SPONSORED.
Does anyone object to removing these references? -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- No objection – "blogspot" is right there in the URL, so clearly this fails WP:SELFPUBLISH and is WP:NOTRS, just like IMDb, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I've heard from @Rswallis10: and @Drmargi:, who have reverted some of the edits I made while cleaning up these references. These are the edits in question:
- ER (season 1)
- ER (season 2)
- ER (season 3)
- ER (season 4)
- Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 1)
- Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 2)
- Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 3)
- Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 4)
- Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 5)
There are a few different patterns in the references I've removed.
One example is what was discussed here last month: <ref name="10-1990">{{cite web|url=http://tvaholics.blogspot.com/2010/06/ratings-archive-october-1990.html|title=Ratings Archive - October 1990|date=June 2, 2010|accessdate=March 21, 2015}}</ref> This reference goes to a self-published blog, which is an unacceptable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH.
Another pattern looks like this: <ref name="sept-oct1996">{{cite web|url=http://anythingkiss.com/pi_feedback_challenge/Ratings/19960916-19961027_TVRatings.pdf|title=Nielsen Ratings - September-October 1996|work=USA Today|accessdate=July 13, 2015}}</ref> contains a reference that claims the work is the USA Today newspaper, but links to a scanned PDF file on the AnythingKiss.com website. The PDF contains scans of partial pages of several issues in the newspaper. The AnythingKiss.com site doesn't claim to have permission to republish scanned copies of the newspaper's content, so this is pretty clearly copyvio. It also isn't a complete reference, since the author, title, publication date, and page number aren't available from the original newspaper.
WP:COPYVIO says, celarly and explicitly: "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to".
Thus, we must remove the URL. If we do so, we're left with a reference that's not at all viable because of those missing parameters. It doesn't identify a source for the referenced facts, and is therefore not verifiable. So, instead, I've replaced the references with {{citation needed}}.
If this information is valuable, then I'm sure some other source for it exists. It should be possible to retrieve the USA Today articles, either online or physically at a library, for example, and develop proper {{cite news}} references for them. Until then, because self-published references aren't usable, and because links to copyvio material aren't allowed, the references should be removed and replaced with {{citation needed}} tags. Something like {{cite news|work=USA Today| page=F3 |title ="Neilsen Ratings for the week of 1 January 2025 |date=2025-01-15 |author=Joe Sample}} would be appropriate. A URL isn't needed (and a URL top copyvio material isn't used), and a clear and verifiable reference to the source material is provided: the newspaper, publication date, and page number are all provided, along with the title of the column where the information appeared. This is a complete verifiable reference to a third-party source.
@Drmargi: doesn't provide any detailed reasoning for reverting my edits, but instead insists that I develop consensus for editing the articles per the WP:COPYVIO and WP:SELFPUBLISH policies. And so, here I am! Are there reasons these policies shouldn't be honored in these cases? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- NOTE! I've also found WP:YTCOPYRIGHT, which says "Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations". -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The situation you are describing sounds slightly complicated – it sounds like the Blog is basically simply "republishing" ratings from another "original" source. There is no doubt that simply sourcing the original source would be preferable. But, a lot of the times with ratings info, the original source no longer exists (or, at least, is no longer available on the internet). So a Blog post that says something like "According Media Week's ratings for the week of March 20, 2001, ER scored [X] ratings..." is a "gray" area, IMO, as an acceptable source. (I'd probably leave it, but possibly tag it with a {{Better source needed}} tag...) OTOH, if it's a blog post that says simply "ER scored [X] ratings during the week of March 20, 2001.", and there's not even the mention of an original source for this data, then it would definitely be unacceptable for use as a source. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- If the original source isn't on the Internet, that's fine. The {{cite news}} reference doesn't require a URL, and can reference the printed newspaper article by page, title, and issue date, just like any other hard-copy periodical reference. Unfortunately, the references right now don't include the publication date or page number -- just "USA Today".
- The links vary, but most are closer to the second example you give. The reference I happen to quote above for tvaholics doesn't have any text other than a couple of summary sentences about the whole months' top-ranking shows. The rest of the post is copyvio *.JPG pictures of the ratings column. I expect they've come from the USA Today due to the layout. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Mikeblas: I do not have a strong opinion either way as I am not well-versed in Wikipedia policy regarding Copyright. @IJBall: is correct in his explanation, as pre-2007 Nielsen ratings are not easy to find online. TVbytheNumbers (TVBTN) began in 2007 and despite beginning as a self-published blog, was eventually acquired by Zap2it, and became the most used Nielsen ratings source on Wikipedia. ShowBuzzDaily (which is also a self-published blog) is now the go-to source on Wikipedia as they provide a LOT more ratings and TVBTN has now shut down. But again, TVBTN only goes back to 2007 and ShowBuzzDaily is only back to 2014, so when it comes to anything before that, it becomes a lot harder to find anything. Due to the fact that almost every Nielsen rating on this site comes from a site that can be classified as WP:SELFPUBLISH (just due to the nature of the data), I wouldn't object to the inclusion of TVAholics solely on that policy. Violating WP:COPYVIO is a totally valid reason to objecting to this data's inclusion; However, I think it might be worth it to invoke WP:IAR because my personal belief is that the value these USA Today citations add to Wikipedia eclipses the importance of WP:COPYVIO. If we disagree on that, I'm totally okay with going through all of these links and changing the citation to {{cite news}}; however, my concern with that is that it makes it much more difficult for readers to find the original source (USA Today is available for free on microfilm in select libraries). Now, is that our problem? Well, not really, but my reason for using that source when I originally did the citations was to make the original source accessible. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Also, to clarify, the anythingkiss website is run by the same guy as TVAholics, so they are the same source. The TVAholics website links to Anytingkiss where the actual PDF scans of the USA Today are hosted. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think we can use WP:IAR where copyvio is involved as there are legal and external ramifications for doing so. That is, copyvio isn't a rule -- it's a law, so I don't think we've got any choice but to expunge the links. In some cases, that means removing the URL and the well-populated citation tag stays because it contains the necessary reference information. In other cases, the citation left behind isn't a complete reference and should be replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag in case someone eventually finds the needed reference. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Rswallis10:, I haven't heard back from you after a few days. I'd like to proceed by removing the URLs in question. If the remaining reference is viable (that is, includes the publication date and page of the newspaper) I can reformat it into a {{cite news}} reference. Otherwise, I'll replace it with a Fact tag. Please let me know if you have an alternative solution. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, we should be citing the newspaper articles and absolutely not linking to copyright violations. Editors at pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request might be able to help out for old articles not online. I'd say in this situation it's better to leave the information there, with a {{citation needed}} tag if necessary, rather than remove it, though the ideal is citing the right news article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Mikeblas:@Bilorv: I would agree with that, is it possible to leave the data there (as we know it is correct) but put a citation needed tag? Rswallis10 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, we should be citing the newspaper articles and absolutely not linking to copyright violations. Editors at pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request might be able to help out for old articles not online. I'd say in this situation it's better to leave the information there, with a {{citation needed}} tag if necessary, rather than remove it, though the ideal is citing the right news article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Per our discussion, I've edited these articles:
- List of The Critic episodes: just a cite web with a URL, no mention of the newspaper. These were replaced with {{fact}} tags.
- ER (season 3): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
- ER (season 4): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
- House of Buggin': cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
- Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction: just a cite web with a URL, no mention of the newspaper. These were replaced with {{fact}} tags.
- ER (season 1): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
- ER (season 2): cite web, mentioned USA today, but didn't mention page, article, or author in the newspaper. Replaced with {{fact}} tags.
- The Truth (Seinfeld) raw reference to tvaholics (self-published, replaced with {{fact}} tag.
In all cases, I've left whatever claim (or number, or ...) was made; it's just the reference themselves that have bee nreplaced, not the fact in question. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
CFD: Television program(me)s → Television shows
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s, where I have proposed renaming 471 categories, by replacing the phrase "television program(me)s" with "Television shows". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- This brings up a larger issue that WP:TV really should tackle – the move of the article television program to television show in late 2017 after a poorly attend WP:RM. The membership of WP:TV really need to consider if that RM result is acceptable, and whether maybe another WP:RM, this time with the fuller participation of WP:TV, should be launched to reverse the earlier result... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just to add: the proposal to standardize categories as a "television show" is for all television programs, which by being an across-the-board renaming would include news, documentaries, made-for-TV films, after school specials, sports; English-language, and non-English language programs. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
List of most expensive television shows needs to be written
It looks like we don't have a List of most expensive television shows article to complement our List of most expensive films article. Does anyone want to write it? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- There are likely two issues with that. First, whereas films do have tracking of how much individual films are made on a regular basis, this doesn't exist for television shows. Secondary, at best, I've seen TV estimated on cost on a per-episode basis, if that is even given. While you might be able to build a list, it will be based on a very fragmented data set and thus not be very useful. --Masem (t) 04:37, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yep – honestly, I suspect the sourcing isn't there for such a list focused on TV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Input from other editors are welcome, even if you don't watch the series but have knowledge of non-free images, particularly in relation to MOS:TVIMAGE. You can find all the images here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Is fbibler.chez.com a reliable source?
About 130 TV project articles use fbibler.chez.com as a source. These pages are all self-published, and therefore are not |reliable sources. Is there any objection to removing these references and replacing them with {{fact}} tags? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, no objection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is clearly not a reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 18:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
OK! I've removed these references. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Splitting or deleting 2010s in Irish television?
This decade-of-years article is unique; I don't think other countries (or broadcast markets?) have articles for a decade of "in television" events. The article is a mess; it's a bunch of smaller articles for each year, all glude together in one topic, headers and footers and all. There's an apparently stalled proposal to split the articles. Is there any reason not to do the split? (Pinging people: Pi314m, This is Paul ) -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- No reason at all IMHO, I was going to give it a couple of weeks before splitting, then got sidetracked updating stuff about the COVID-19 pandemic. If there are no major objections I'll do it over the weekend. This is Paul (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds great (I'm all for it). LMK if you need any helps! -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers, I'll make a start this evening. If you're about I might need a couple of redirects deleting so I can move some pages. I don't think it will be possible to revert the moves because the articles have been edited since they were moved. This is Paul (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- An Update: Everything is pretty much back to how it was now, just a couple of redirects to delete so pages can be moved. The decades pages have been converted into disambiguation pages, which seems like a good plan to me. This is Paul (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Redirects deleted. Cheers, Rehman 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, have moved everything back now and finished creating disambig pages with the decades pages. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Redirects deleted. Cheers, Rehman 16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- An Update: Everything is pretty much back to how it was now, just a couple of redirects to delete so pages can be moved. The decades pages have been converted into disambiguation pages, which seems like a good plan to me. This is Paul (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cheers, I'll make a start this evening. If you're about I might need a couple of redirects deleting so I can move some pages. I don't think it will be possible to revert the moves because the articles have been edited since they were moved. This is Paul (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sounds great (I'm all for it). LMK if you need any helps! -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Dating review aggregator info. — YoungForever(talk) 13:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers. — YoungForever(talk) 13:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Queer Eye (2018 TV series)#Requested move 19 May 2020. — YoungForever(talk) 14:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
You may not have heard of it, but it's kind of famous. Your input is welcome at Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements. Article could also benefit from more editing/watchers overall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:Articles for Creation now has a sort tool; you can use it to review Draft TV articles
Just thought some folks here would like to be able to see proposed drafts and weigh in: Wikipedia:AfC_sorting#Culture/Media/Television_(14). MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Please look at this infobox
Please look at the length of this infobox in this article. Words fail me.--AussieLegend (✉) 15:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yikes. I saw your trims and I removed the exhaustive list of languages, but there is still a lot of junk for an infobox (no need to list every EP for the entire series!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAnthony (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think we should be thankful that the rest of the article manages to follow at least the rudiments of MOS:TV – many articles (esp. animation and anime articles!) do not! (My latest example being Dinnerladies (TV series), which I've just cleaned up...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes looks pretty bad too IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to continually wonder why 22-minute episodes need plot summaries over 300 words... QueerFilmNerdtalk 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @QueerFilmNerd: You should have seen over Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Plot length when there was a 7 minute episode clocking more than 400 words. — YoungForever(talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- YoungForever, I assume people think that since its shorter, they can just include more of the plot. Anyways, I got rid of a lot of fluff information and trivia for the episodes, I removed air dates for countries that aren't listed in the countries of origin, since we don't need to know the air date of every single country, regardless of dub. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- @QueerFilmNerd: You should have seen over Talk:Love, Death & Robots#Plot length when there was a 7 minute episode clocking more than 400 words. — YoungForever(talk) 19:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm going to continually wonder why 22-minute episodes need plot summaries over 300 words... QueerFilmNerdtalk 18:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes looks pretty bad too IMO... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Good Fight#About the lead section. Editors are needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Category:WCVB-TV has been nominated for deletion
Category:WCVB-TV, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Defunct TV shows and the general MOS on verb tenses
There's been a discussion related to what verb tenses to use for defunct magazines ("is" vs "was") over at WT:MOS#WP:WAS and defunct magazines. In that, I've brought up the concept that there is a difference between "content" that is persistent (that retains present tense) and the "container" (that when it stops publication becomes "was", but its content may still be discussed in present tense)
This led to the discussion of television shows in the same manner. In that it makes sense to same something like I Love Lucy was a television show... I Love Lucy is considered one of the best comedy series... as the show itself was a container, whereas episodes are specific content such that we'd still say "Lucy Does a TV Commercial" is an episode of the television show I Love Lucy.... There are a handful of exceptions (miniseries, one-off events, streaming media shows like Netflix Originals) that have been discussed, but there's now a suggestion of moving on this idea. As this would affect TV shows, I wanted to make sure the TV project was pinged to provide comments on this since this will affect this project the most. --Masem (t) 17:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that something like "I Love Lucy is an American comedy television series that aired on CBS from October 15, 1951 to May 6, 1957..." is not wrong in terms of tense, and is in fact correct. Luckily, from what I could see, the linked-to discussion did not come to any conclusion about WP:TVNOW. But for my $0.02, WP:TVNOW is in fact correct, and should not be changed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
American Idol color templates
Hi there, I just want editors or anyone who can help will be fine. I've happen to come across the page and asking for a help request if anyone can change the color scheme format for the American Idol articles (the first 15 seasons). I'm doing this because that from what I observed:
- The colorful scheme has mostly been used for other competition and the contrast has been ideal for display. Using only monochrome colors lack contrast and the bold typeface should only be indicated for winners, not elimination. The yellow, light blue, light green and pink colors were the most common, respectively used for public save/top entries, judges save/bottom entries, special save and elimination.
- The colorful scheme was first used on the ABC-revival (season 16 and later) and it had later adopted for a few select articles, such as SPOP Sing! (another reality singing competition held the same year as the AI season 16, in 2018)
- I've seen other articles like The Voice and The X Factor, and these displays of results and performance charts are acceptable.
- Maintain a good consistency on other articles, that is, the same format as all other articles in a series.
Earlier before I came to the page, I experimented the format on the very first AI season so that this will get attention to editors. I had faced a time constraint and unable to edit most big articles for the time being, however.
For other Idol articles outside US, it's about time to also see a change. Hope if anyone can also agree on the new changes. TVSGuy (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Notification of RfC re: WP:WAS
Notifying interested parties that there is a new RfC regarding WP:WAS, the outcome of which might impact WP:TVNOW. See RfC: Should "is" or "was" be used to describe periodical publications that are no longer being published?.— TAnthonyTalk 13:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposal
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:13 Reasons Why#Split proposal. Currently, the mainspace tv series and three individual season articles (currently redirects to the main article) are fully protected due to edit warring/dispute over how to split the main article either to split by season, split to list of episodes, or no split. — YoungForever(talk) 09:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Additional comment: Editors are still needed to weigh in on this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 14:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Preferred Order of Episodes. Another discussion about what should be the "correct" order of episodes in episode tables, and whether this should be added to the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Anyone have a WrapPro account?
Does any editor have a WrapPro account that they would be willing to get info from a source for me? I'm trying to access this source on TheWrap about Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. but it is behind the WrapPro service. If anyone does and would be willing to copy the text to another site to share with me so I could look over its content to see what could be added, that would be much appreciated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Information has been obtained. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)