Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10
Discussion preceeded at the Infobox Television talk section.

I propose that the IMDb and TV.com sections of Infobox Television should be removed. The reasoning is that the infobox should not favour IMDb or TV.com as credible external links. The amount of traffic that television show articles receive is high, and linking to commercial entities in infoboxes is a form of advertising. It is also anti-competitive for these two commercial websites to receive high amounts of traffic via wikipedia, as opposed to competitors that provide similar services. There is also no justification for the links' existance in the main infobox, when they also appear in the external links section. Please continue discussion below. Thanks. Stickeylabel 11:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stickeylabel. Not only are they commercial, but there are also deemed unreliable when you use them as a source. IMDb has in fact admitted that their TV section might be in flux the next year or so as they introduced pages for individual episodes. Another thing is that even when the links are in the infobox, you will still find the same links in the "External links" section. The last problem is that the infobox in its current state is ratter long. Even if you don't use all of the options it still takes up a lot of space. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was internal links, but I think it is unnecessary to use that space for external links. --Maitch 18:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I think this is something that should be carried over to the film articles as well.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about removing, or about moving ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's about the removal of TV.com and IMDb.com from the infobox, not the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the IMDb and TV.com sections of Infobox Television due to the concensus reached. Stickeylabel 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have some sort of external link at the bottom of the infobox, besides any official sites. - Peregrine Fisher 15:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Why??--Vbd (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's easier to access imdb and tv.com (or whatever sites) there, instead of at the bottom of a possibly enormous page. Because of our OR rules, there's almost no way to include if a show is good, or rather, if people like it. These links lead to that info. When I want info about a show, one of the most important things I want to know about is, should I watch it. I know we're not a tv guide, but a couple of links at the bottom of the infobox doesn't seem too much. - Peregrine Fisher 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be useful, but it's not appropriate since the 'box is supposed to include data snippets (cast, run time, production staff, initial air date, etc) for the episode or show. Websites don't fit there. As for ease of use... Having the external links consistently between the reference/footnotes section and categories makes it easy to just hit <End> and find the sites that are either official organs for the show and/or those that would rate it either by professionals or by the casual viewers. — J Greb 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said on the other talk page, we should move these links out of the infobox and put them in the EL section. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do film infoboxes get external links sections? - Peregrine Fisher 06:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the large consensus? - Peregrine Fisher 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Film will be discussed separately at a later stage. External links do not belong in infoboxes they belong in the External links section. Also, there is a large consensus on this page, you are the only Wikipedian oppossed to the removal of the IMDb and TV.com sections. Please remember that it may be useful to you, but that is not a valid reason for the sections existance. Please state something other than your personal opinion in this matter. Stickeylabel 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way:
  1. WP:MOS says we should put that kind of stuff in the EL section (Wikipedia:External links)
  2. often I see disputes on which links to include in an infobox, and we obviously can't have them all.
  3. an EL section is linked at the TOC, it's pretty easy to get at.
  4. Most infoboxes, or even nav boxes, include ELs
  5. another thing to cut from our infoboxes, which can be very bloated at times
  6. Infoboxes are generally for quick, at-a-glance-facts and not navigation
On the other hand we have "they're handy".
In all fairness, though, PF and Matthew are not the only ones who feel this way. We shouldn't ignore the other talk page simply because we're on this talk page. Even with that said, I believe the logical consensus (given the MOS-backing) would point to yanking them. We can continue to discuss this, if people really wish. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Good synopsis, Ned. Switching thoughts, I think this is ignoring what consensus really is. I see this over and over on WP. People start a conversation, get 5 or 15 (if they're lucky) people to agree, then declare they have a consensus. In this case, the consensus is probably ignoring millions of people who've visited the pages, and 1000's of experienced editors who have edited the pages. It's easy to take over a talk page; it's hard to really judge how people feel. If you were to count every 1/10 person who added the imdb and tv.com IDs as objections, there would be a consensus to keep these links. I'm not wed to imdb and tv.com being the links, but we need easily accessed links. Until we find something better, leave the links. - Peregrine Fisher 07:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
We do have something better, it's called the EL section (Wikipedia:External links). The external links section is and has been common practise within practically every article on Wikipedia since its inception, television articles shouldn't be an exception. An infobox is for quick key information regarding the article, and not for linking to commercial third party websites. This discussion is placed on the main WikiProject which is designed to deal with issues such as this. If any persons wish to be part of WikiProject Television they have to the right to join and debate. Most persons of whom dedicate their time towards television articles on Wikipedia are part of this WikiProject and would thusly receive notification of this debate in their watchlist. Gaining consensus is not something new on Wikipedia (see WP:CON), an adequate time of five days was given after agreement was reached, therefore the sections were removed, however this was reverted sometime later. I am yet to see anything substantial as to why the sections shouldn't be removed. Until an overwhelming concensus states otherwise, the links should be removed as soon as possible. Stickeylabel 07:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ned Scott that the imdb and tv.com links should be yanked from the infobox. They belong at the bottom of articles. talk to symode09's or Reveiw Me! 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Five days of a few people talking isn't much of a consensus compared to the number of articles we're talking about. The overwhelming consensus is that these links have existed or a long time. - Peregrine Fisher 08:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree as per Stickeylabel. Non-Reliable and corporate favouritism. - Mike Beckham 08:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
There was five days of no discussion, and there actually was in fact nearly a fortnight of actual discussion regarding the matter. Again, please relate your opinion to actual substance in regards to policies and guidelines, and do not use the word "consensus" where you are only stating a personal opinion. This debate seems to just be a reverting exercise, with nothing as to why the sections shouldn't be removed. The persons involved in the Television project have had adequate time to respond to this debate, and many have so. The use of such links is a violation of numerous policies and guidelines and is highly anti-competitive. Consensus for the removal of the IMDb and TV.com sections of Infobox Television has been reached. Please continue discussion if you disagree. If an overwhelming majority disagree with the changes present in television articles, they have the right to debate here, and until such time as consensus states otherwise, do not revert. Stickeylabel 08:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
A quick count of opinions in the discussion over the past week is; 1 Against the removal and 8 For the removal, of the IMDb and TV.com sections of Infobox Television. This is overwhelming consensus for its removal. Stickeylabel 08:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a game, applying an arbitrary time period like a week doesn't refute the fact that more then one person objects to removal, I count: my self, The DJ, Peregrine Fisher and The JPS. This is a discussion, note a vote, things like AfD have a five-day discussion as they're [generally] high-traffic. Modifying such a highly used template will require a consensus, I suggest taking this to the pump as there's not enough people here to draw a proper consensus. Matthew 09:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
No one has insinuated that this is a game, so that diversion is best avoided. In fact, it'd be best if we got back to the strength of arguments. Not one compelling argument has been put for the retention of these links; indeed, those favouring the status quo have, by and large, resorted to WP:ILIKEIT-type positions. Conversely, those advocating the removal have validly pointed out the inconsistency of the links with external links and style guidelines and the purpose of infoboxes. Consensus is determined on the weight of arguments and their consistency with the spirit of established policy, irrespective of numbers. In this case, consensus appears to me to be in favour of removing the links.--cj | talk 10:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Admittedly nobody has stated this is a game, it is my opinion as to how Stickylabel appears to verse this discussion. Nobody denies that /perhaps/ [emphasis added] the links within the infobox do not meet MoS standards. Indeed WP:MoS states at the top in a box, "Wikipedia articles", then within the lead paragraph, "These are not rigid laws: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which should be applied with flexibility". A problem on Wikipedia is sourcing, things unequivocally must be sourced, I do not consider IMDb and TV.com secondary sources, but I do believe they meet the criteria for a tertiary source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Unquestionably the information within an infobox also requires citing, I believe in light of this that these links are not only of general use but rather also corroborate information contained within an infobox. In conclusion it is my belief that these links do not violate the Manual of Style, point in fact we would link them either way, and even if IMDb and TV.com are concluded as violating the MoS it would be pertinent to ignore the rules. Addendum: The Infobox Film has consensus for usage of their IMDb link. Matthew 11:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
If you submit an article for FAC, you cannot use IMDb or TV.com as they are considered unreliable sources. --Maitch 11:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
As I stated IMDb and TV.com are not secondary sources. "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible" - WP:RS. Matthew 11:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
... And Wikipedia should never rely on self-published unreliable sources such as IMDb and TV.com. --Maitch 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not discussing this like a game, I am applying facts, guidelines and policies. Certain articles may require information in their infobox to be cited, and it is standard practise (see WP:CITE) to link to references in the references section at the bottom of articles. Most other, if not all information, should be cited within the article itself, as is already in practise. Also, just because Infobox Film has reached a consensus, does not mean it is a correct consensus. Your statement also seems to be missing one of the main reasons for the links removal, it is anti-competitive for these two commercial websites to receive high amounts of traffic via wikipedia, as opposed to competitors that provide similar services. It is also impracticle to link to all television websites in the infobox. That is why Wikipedia contains external links on an article by article basis, and does not favour any commercial organisation. Stickeylabel 11:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is quite null, we'd still link them either way. We don't like to other websites because quite often they are non-notable, such as "TVRage". IMDb and TV.com have established notability. Not to mention, "Infobox Film has reached a consensus, does not mean it is a correct consensus" is a flat out argumentum ad ignorantiam. They've got a consensus, and it's indicative that multiple users are in support of useful links within an infobox. Matthew 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you guys want to make such a simple issue into such a pain. It's sloppy, it looks bad, and the reasons to include it are weak. If you guys want to go by numbers alone, we've got four editors to seven, which means remove has 63% support. Wikipedia:Consensus says 60% can be considered consensus. I've left messages at the village pump and WP:RFC, so maybe we'll get some more feedback from there. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone would have counted my simple question of "why?" as a "vote" in this matter (because, of course, we are not voting), but I have to say that I find Peregrine Fisher's responses unconvincing. IMDb links, etc., have a place -- in the External Links section. My understanding of the purpose of an Infobox is that it provides a high-level snapshot of the article. It is not to meet a "need for easily accessed links." It is unfortunate that such links are included in Film Infoboxes; they don't belong there either. Now that you have my two cents, will it make a difference in this process? Or will this discussion just keep going in circles?--Vbd (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The main principles behind my stance on the issue is commercialism. I joined Wikipedia to reduce my income of commercial and/or biased information, not to promote it. I find it grossly absurd that Wikipedians should contribute to a "Free encyclopedia" just to increase the traffic and revenue of two designated commercial entities. External links should be unbiased and balanced, and under no circumstance should we designate two commercial organisations for all television articles, and then make the decision on behalf of millions of readers that these are the '"best sources"'. The use of the external links section is not only common practise, but is also highly accessible, with the simple push of the <end> button on a standard qwerty keyboard, that has been in use for numerous decades. External links sections also allow for the most appropriate first party and third party links to appear in an article by article basis, and to present to readers accurate 'official' and 'balanced third party' sources. Also, what will prevent Infobox Automobile from introducing links on all automobile articles that link to MSN Autos, or for Infobox Album to include a link placeholder to album information on Yahoo Music? We need to set a precedent. I think we are also forgetting that there are numerous official first party resources that could be linked instead. But my personal opinion aside, the facts are clear, and the pros for removal by far outweigh any cons, and the support for removal by far outweighs the support for keep. As does Vbd, I severely hope that this discussion will cease '"going in circles"', to allow for an outcome to occur. Stickeylabel 12:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You've yet to present a "pro" here. Please tell me one. Matthew 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Pro EL section people are incorrect in their assessments, it's just that I think the links are also useful in the Infobox. Some points i would like to mention

  1. EL are not limited to the EL section. That has NEVER been the policy
  2. Not really an argument, but there is a reason why Infobox Film uses this. People clearly like it.
  3. These might not be reliable sources, but they are the MOST reliable "general" links we have on the entire topic.
  4. The tvtome links were experessely added in a.o. to provide counterweight to the imdb link favouratism. When TV.com took over, that was a shame, because now there is no independent widely recognised source anymore.
  5. It's mostly popular culture, and as such any research into the subjects is in it's infancy AT MOST. This is why source as imdb.com and tv.com are usually more handy.

Policies and guidelines in Wikipedia are not set in stone. I know people want to avoid favouratism and similar behaviour popping up in other non-tv/film articles, but this is the kind of "weeding" the guidelines were not intended for in my eyes. The fact is when it comes to TV articles in general, there are no more reliable, complete and independant sources then tv.com and imdb.com. As sad as that might be. If any, the fact that we currently need to favor these sites, might be more of an incentive for "independant and reliable" sources to be created by other people. I would love to link tviv.org for example, but they are just an episode guide unfortunately. They lack even more of the required aspects of a source than imdb.com and tv.com do. Something i'm open for might be to change the way the links are represented in the infobox. Make them less of a visual focus point, or something. Don't have any ideas about that yet, but I'll think about it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW. I don't like to name these links "sources" btw. I personally prefer the term "profile sites" and that's how we "should" always refer to these links in wikipeda. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sopranos

We need help over at the Sopranos big time. Barnstars for anybody who can siginificantly help me (and the other editors of course) get the article up to at least GA status. Aaron Bowen 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? C'mon we need help. Aaron Bowen 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, we need some help. Aaron Bowen 02:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Original Channel" section in the infobox Template:Infobox television

This section has caused confusion within the Wikipedia Television community. I have always seen the "Original Channel" meaning the channel which the show was first broadcast, regradless of future channel changes for the show. Cause of debate over this has been with the Neighbours article. The show started on Channel Seven and switched to Channel Ten one year later. Only Channel Seven is mentioned in the infobox. Now a new debate has started with Kath & Kim which has switched from ABC TV to Channel Seven. Is there a guideline to what should be included or hasn't this been discussed yet. Maybe a rename of the section should occur. What do others think? --Lakeyboy 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First blush would be to have the 'box list the channel/network that first commissioned or bought the show. Leave migrations to the article itself, this is a change that should be a notable part of the show's history.
One thing that may be helpful is to have a "call out" link in the 'box. Just something a simple as an asterisk that is linked to the production/airing history section so a reader can see that the show moved and can read why. — J Greb 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
An example is television shows on The CW, they state (i.e. Veronica Mars) the date of their broadcasts on both UPN and The CW. In my opinion Original channel means the original channels that broadcasted first run episodes, and syndicated broadcasts should not be included. For instance if Kath & Kim were to be axed at the end of 2007 and Channel Nine were to buy the rights to reruns, then Channel Nine would not be included in the infobox. Stickeylabel 06:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes the Original Channel section should detail the first airing of the episodes, not of the "first episode" The infobox details the fictional work as a whole, and all episodes are relevant in that. Unlike all airings (syndications and international broadcasts) btw, which are much less relevant, because they do not effect the "existence" of the entire work). I'll see if I can clean that up in the template documentation. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 11:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions/comments about plot summaries

I've noticed on Day Break episodes, that a few users claim a long summary is needed (so they just instantly remove the plot tag I place). Since when did Wikipedia become a complete guide to episodes? It should be a summary, shouldn't it? Day Break was around 40 minutes per show, and the summaries for all the episodes I've seen are massive and certainly should be condensed. I don't see any reason Wikipedia needs episode guides to every detail. With the exception of word-by-word dialouge: the Day Break episode articles seem to be complete guides in my opinion. One example: Pilot (Day Break). For the whole list: Category:Day Break episodes. Any help would be appreciated, as I'm getting tired of seeing the plot tags removed due to a few editors thinking guides to the episodes should exist. Also I've noticed the same trend for some Lost episodes as well. I don't see any reason Wikipedia needs these massive episode guides: a summary is just fine. RobJ1981 04:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what is actually tiring? Editors who don't actually read the text, base it on length and just assume it's "too long". I see no reason why Wikipedia does not need these episode guides, we are an encyclopaedia after all; just because you dislike them.. doesn't mean they're non-encyclopaedic. That article needs a rewrite anyway. Matthew 07:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
2¢... and a nasty 2¢ at that...
Overly long, or detailed if you prefer, summaries come damn close to causing problems with copyright and fair use. The same logic that dictates "Images must not be of a quality usable for reproduction or compete with the owner of the work" would hold that what summaries should not compete with, or under cut the person(s)/companies that own the original material.
Also (and this might not go over to well...) Wiki has a blunt policy point on plot summaries:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: point 7.
And just to be clear: Once the plot summary takes up the majority of the article space, it ceases to be an aspect of the topic, it is the topic.
- J Greb 07:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you've not read WP:NOT#PAPER. :-) Matthew 07:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, same policy piece.
Now, repeat after me: This is not a space issue.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not state "Because of space concerns, Wikipedia is not..." nothing in that policy WP:NOTE is based on that premise. The premise for the content "nots" is that by initial intent and overall consensus, these are things that do not belong within Wikipedia.
Re-read that a couple of times and let it sink in.
Now, if you want to argue that an episode article can be be expanded so that a long an detailed summary is not the sole or primary focus of the article, I see no reason why that cannot be done. Space isn't an issue. File size, if you're going to be polite to users with slow connection, may be, but that is a different discussion (and a guideline not a policy IIRC). It may be come a bloated, awkward, unfriendly, useless article, but it won't be a plot summary.
- J Greb 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Repeat after me, "Wikipedia is not paper". Matthew 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
This really makes me wonder what part of "This is not a space issue." is so hard to understand. — J Greb 19:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

But, Wikipedis is not a substitution for watching a show/movie; so, you still cannot have a plot that is scene for scene, even if it only consists of about 10% of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However people seem to be under an illusion "It's long.. must be on about everything", a lot of these long-plot taggers don't even bother to read the actual plot. A complex plot requires explanation to compliment it, this of course adds weight to the section and so people tag it. Matthew 11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, complex plots do need a bit longer exlaination. But you have to admit, there should be no reason why a 22 min, or a 42 min show should have a plot the length of a 90-120 min movie. Comlexities and all. I've read some plots of television shows that added too many minute details that didn't really move a plot along. If an episode contains a fight scene, do we really need to detail the fight, or can we sum it up within one sentence? I can't think of too many complext episodes of The Simpsons or South Park. But I'm sure that are some shows that do have some episodes that require a bit of "brain usage" to understand.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I do indeed agree, I just think mass tagging article isn't beneficial to them, to be honest when I see an article tagged it doesn't make me want to clean it up.. it just makes me move on. Matthew 11:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've assessed each of the articles for Day Break this morning and requested addition of the other sections we recommend and an attempt to copy edit and reduce the size of the articles, hope that helps.--Opark 77 11:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, instead of mass tagging, we can just go to the main article for that show and say "hey, your individual episode plots need some clean up. They are....., and ....." Or, at least something to that degree.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When you say "mass tagging" what do you mean? The recent assessments I did or the initial plot summary tags both involve use of a template over several pages. I say we should do both of these things and also give notice at the main show article where appropriate. If something needs to be done we can't really overstate that it needs doing, tags are one way of encouraging constructive edits, notes on the related articles talk page are another means to this end. Both have pros and cons. I believe tags are a lot harder to ignore but using talk pages is a much more personable approach.--Opark 77 16:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to Matthew's early comment of "just because you dislike them.. doesn't mean they're non-encyclopaedic". I don't dislike the show: I dislike overly long plot summaries, and they are certainly unencylopedic. As stated before: articles aren't a substitute for watching the show (and never should be). In response to another comment by Matthew "I just think mass tagging article isn't beneficial to them, to be honest when I see an article tagged it doesn't make me want to clean it up.. it just makes me move on.". The article has ONE tag on it, I don't see that as a problem. Many articles on Wikipedia are worse and have several maintenance tags on it. If you just feel the need to "move on", that's not our problem. The problem is massively long plot summaries (which is what the tag you choose to ignore is used for). If by "mass tagging" you mean tagging episodes for the same show: I admit to doing that. Why should I mark one, and not the others? Going to the talk page is a solution I suppose: but a lot of the time talk pages are very inactive. Tags on articles are seen by all (not just someone viewing a talk page). If tags weren't useful: they wouldn't exist. If you don't want to help the problem, just "move on" as you put it. Lastly, repeat after me: summary, not guide to the whole episode. RobJ1981 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Grease: You're the One that I Want

Hello, everyone. I've just expanded this article. I'd be grateful if folks would take a look and edit my purple prose. Best regards! -- Ssilvers 06:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ive had a quick look and made some minor changes. The prose is not bad at all but there are some long and cumbersome sentences, particularly in the lead.--Opark 77 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Summaries that are copy vios

I think we should create a centralized page for keeping track of Lists of episodes and other TV pages that have massivle amounts of text copied from TV.com and other sites. I've been removing the summaries when I se them, but I think something organized is in order because there's a lot of them. What do people think? - Peregrine Fisher 18:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to get some clarification... is this to do prep work (sweep to find but not fix) or to "safeguard" (these were and may have been flipped back)?
I think both have some merit, but it becomes a matter of degree. I can see the prep work, in a way... "This had it, I've removed it, but I've got no clue how to rework it as I've never actually seen the show." sort of thing. And the "safeguard" only if there's a pattern of the copyvios being reverted back in. - J Greb 19:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Both, plus figuring out the more difficult cases. I'm hoping it would deal with three problems. a) There's lots of them and they're hard to find. Also, sometimes you see one, but don't have time to fix it right then. b) People (and bots) tend to revert you (me) when you remove the summaries. This could help people (like me) who don't like to revert war. c) Sometimes it's hard to tell if they're all copy vios, or just some of them. Also, all the wikipedia mirrors can make it difficult to tell. - Peregrine Fisher 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A proposal to explcitly limit the use of fair use images in Featured Lists is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Fair Use images. This is especially relevant to this Wikiproject, as many TV-related lists use fair use images (particularly screenshots). Your input would be apreciated. Tompw (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Intersection with WP Films

Hi, the issue has been brought up in WP Films of what we consider films and what not. Surely television films is a common area between our projects, but we are unsure about TV series and TV miniseries. For TV series, I take it that they are basically TV films in a few (but how many exactly?) parts. Please correct me if I am wrong. So there remains the question of TV miniseries. Category:Television miniseries has only parent Category:Television programs. However many mistakes in categorizing such articles as films happen and lately even a whole subcategory Category:Canadian television miniseries was assigned to parent Category:Canadian television films. So before we start any cleanup, it would be good to have these points clear between our projects. Hoverfish Talk 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

TV miniseries: I am confused. I read the definitions in the article. The broader one sais more than two parts. Yet several 2-parts even get awarded as miniseries. H2O (miniseries) is one example (awards as per imdb link). Any enlightening comment would be of help. Thanks. Hoverfish Talk 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no fixed definition unfortunately. "A miniseries (sometimes mini-series), in a serial storytelling medium, is a production which tells a story in a limited number of episodes." it the closest that there is I think. Traditionally, and in general it's between 2 and 8 episodes. But it changes all the time. The main characteristics that we use I guess are "made for TV", and "episodic multi-part". Anything under that flag we will usually consider as part of the TV project, anything else is for WP:FILM. However, things as the Babylon 5 made-for-TV movies (2-part episodes) are really hard to clearly define as TV only or Movie only. I guess we will have more of such problems in the future. I think the best is to stay with the terminology of it's creators. They often use either mini-series or film, and I guess we should follow that convention to the best of our ability. I'm guessing this problem will become ever more apparent over the coming years. At some point in time, we will have to deal with it more thoroughly, possibly by adding more of each others infobox paramaters or something. we'll see. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for character articles:

  • Cliff Huxtable - probably one of the best-known African American characters on television, which is a huge accomplishment considering it's been running as reruns for years.
  • Ralph Kramden - one of the first characters to fill his niche (jerk, gloating husband)
  • Lt. Columbo - long-standing show, very well-known and well-liked character.
  • Roseanne Conner - A well-known character from a very well-known show.
  • And others that I'll add.

Would anyone care to comment on the validity of the above concepts? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are suggesting.. since those are just redirects. Are you suggesting we make character articles for those characters? If so, WP:FICT would be the page that applies (not to say we can't discuss it here, since we can, but just to let you know). -- Ned Scott 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I realize. I was simply asking some of the people that might be interested in the discussion what they feel about these prospective character articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why they don't have pages? Because it seems odd that every character from every new show has a page, but some of these older MUCH more famous characters don't. By all means, I agree that they deserve pages. -- Scorpion 23:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
While there might be a lot to write about these characters, I think the reason we see so many articles on new TV show characters is... because it's a bit of a fad. Because X is or was popular with enough editors, a page seems to pop up, wether it is needed or not.
The best thing we can do for these characters is to not make most of the article a plot summary. We're here to tell real-world things about these topics, not to replace the experience of the story itself. If we can add information you don't find out by just watching the show, that will make it a far more valuable article. Thanks to DVD commentaries, interviews, and even biographies of actors (which you should be able to find for all of the above examples), we should be able to get these kinds of real world information. If so, then go for it. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
So Ned, you interested in helping out on them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding trivia disguised as references in TV Episodes.

I recently decided to delete all reference marks at List of Top Gear episodes because of irrelevance to the actual TV episodes and more in tune with "behind the scences fancruft" and already I got gang rushed by other editors that want to keep that stuff in. Aside from properly citing references, one of the references clearly tries to shore up a "Behind the Scences" trivia tidbit which is never mentioned in the episode itself. I know i'm partially at fault for not making my intentions clear, but am I right in assuming that the references might violate Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information?? --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and I tend to disagree with you. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information is not a reason to delete the references themselves. If the editors feel the content improves the article then it should stay. They have considered moving the information elsewhere but came up with no other options. I think it's more pressing to deal with the vast swathes of unreferenced, unencyclopedic content about television.--Opark 77 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the "trivia" mark is not mentioned in the Episode itself, so thats the main sticking point in the episode. If it's not in the episode itself, it's trivia, and is cruft. It's like me adding trivia about the episode of Barely Legal (Family Guy) to List_of_Family_Guy_episodes rather than the respective episode page (which Top Gear doesn't have). Plus i'm looking at other pages, and gotten a few ideas, but what I wanna know from folks not familiar with Top Gear is that mark legit ti add into an episode summary rather than being put into the footnotes or outright deleted? --293.xx.xxx.xx 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Help needed at List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episodes

The current list has gotten too big so it needs to be split up. Also it doesn't use templates so its a bitch to edit. I've done some work at my sandbox and at CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (season 1), but I could really use a hand here. Sandtiger 22:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Television pages that need infoboxes

Is there any way to automatically generate a list of these articles, as the Film WikiProject does? I think adding infoboxes is a really good way to encourage non-project members to start contirbuting. Gillian416 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Cultural references" sections

I'm wondering what the general opinion of these sections in single episode articles is in this project. Yesterday, I was shown that various Simpsons episode articles, including featured ones, contain cultural references sections. These are condoned by the Simpsons project, as shown here. The problem with them are that they're just glorified trivia sections. They do contain various points are valid and productive to point out, but that's why the articles also contain development/production sections.

I can see for the inclusion of the sections if the episode truly calls for it (the huge impact of some South Park episodes), but not for every piece of information that can be sourced. The reasons for keeping the sections boil down to "it's useful", "why not", and such that are used for trivia sections all of the time. So, I'm just wondering if I have a point, or if I'm just sort of rambling. Nemu 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag them with {{trivia}}. Matthew 15:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would cut and merge them myself, but the problem is the project members condone them. Nemu 15:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I don't think them condoning them is a god enough reason to go against the guideline, but I don't edit The Simpsons articles so it doesn't overly bother me. Matthew 15:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that he wants to remove sourced information in featured articles. --Maitch 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
One of the keywords is merge. Cut the trivial stuff (sourced doesn't automatically equal important), and merge the main points. An example with Cape Feare would be to say "Along with Cape Fear, the episode references other other horror films such as Psycho and Friday the 13th Part 3*ref**ref*." inside the development section. That would chop off the trivial I Love Lucy one, and the pointless examples. Nemu 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So this is really about you not liking the idea of a "Cultural references" section, so you can slash-and-burn every article you come across. I don't think this belongs in a "Production" section and the I Love Lucy thing was requested during the FAC.
For my sake you can slash-and-burn unsourced information as much as you want, but I draw the line at sourced information. --Maitch 17:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This is about the fact that I would like to remove the practice of CR sections due to their pointlessness. How do they not fit in the production section? Major themes of the episode go right along with what the episode was based off of. The only reason the ILL thing was requested is due to the fact that the CR section is meant for "ooh, aah" references instead of truly encyclopedic information. And where does this "sourced = important" idea come from? I can source the fact that I stepped in gum, but that doesn't make it important. Nemu 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I hate using the "there's nothing against it" policy, but why should one or two people who dislike CR sections dictate the content of thousands of episode pages, especially when there is no policy specifically saying there can't be CR sections. -- Scorpion 17:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
How is that an argument? There is also no policy stating that there cannot be lists of characters appearing in the episodes. Why aren't there sections like that? Because they're trivial and pointless. That is similar to why these sections should be cut and merged into appropriate places. There is also WP:TRIV stating that trivia sections are to be avoided, and in most cases, the content in CR sections are also trivia section content. Why should around ten active people who like CR sections dictate the content of thousands of episode pages? Nemu 17:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The culture references/pop culture sections can be small (or in a general prose), but massive lists aren't helpful to the article. Also: moving the section to an article of it's own isn't the solution when the section gets too big (even though some people think it's the case, overall with these sections: not just on TV articles). See Category:In popular culture if you want to know what I'm talking about. A good percent of those articles were probably created just to relieve clutter on the article. But the thing is: Wikipedia isn't a trivia/pop culture guide, no matter what people want to think. See Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles for further information. RobJ1981 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Help at Judge John Deed article

Hi, I was wondering if anyone here could lend a hand at the Judge John Deed article, specifically with the broadcast history section, which needs expanding with international premiere dates. Ta. WindsorFan 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Episode lists are having images removed and protected

After several failed attempts to ban screenshots from episode lists, images on other Featured Lists are now being removed by some administators. See the administrator board at WP:AN#Clean up for the featured ones for examples and surrounding discussion.--GunnarRene 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, because they violate policy and Wikimedia Foundation resolutions. You can rally all the troops you like. It won't change this. --Durin 18:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Rallying troops? And what do you call confining discussion to the administrator noticeboard? If this had been copyrigth violation, I would have understood, but this is appears to be about being anti-non-free more than about being pro-free and pro-encyclopedia. --GunnarRene 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Um, confining? That centralizes discussion. Even you referenced the discussion. I'm at a loss as to how you can define that as "confining" unless you're criticizing me for confining the discussion while you're supporting confining the discussion. Hmm. --Durin 18:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a noticeboard, which makes it a great place to announce things, but it only goes out to those who watch the administrator noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion for what I mean by centralizing discussion. The right way to make this policy change is to make a place for centralized discussion and then announce it to anyone who may or may not be interested. The discussion on the administator noticeboard started because of page protection, it was not intended as the place to do the actual discussion of Non-free media. And why do you insult me when I support the centralization of debate by linking to it? --GunnarRene 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • There isn't any policy change. The people who desire to force fair use images in gallery type formats into the project are actively working against policy. The people working against that are simply enforcing policy. If you wish to change this policy, I recommend you take it up with the Wikimedia Foundation, as they are the ones who implemented it. Efforts to change it via consensus here at Wikipedia have no meaning in that context. Wikimania is coming up soon. Perhaps you'd be interested in preparing a paper for presentation regarding how fair use contributes to the production of a free encyclopedia? Call for Participants is still open at http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Participation. --Durin 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • A "gallery-like" format you say? Except one that consist mostly of text. If I revert these image removals, that is just as much policy-enforcment, but I guess being an admin is a big deal. --GunnarRene 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we now targeting DVD covers as well? I've already seen one person remove the DVD cover images from the List of Smallville episodes page. I reverted that because I couldn't find anything in the "unacceptable" section of the "Non-free images" guideline that justified their removal (especially considering that, apart from the title card in the article, they are the only images on the entire page). Was there something I missed in that new guideline, or are we going a bit overboard with the removal of non-free images?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I see why it was removed from the selected page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation of the use of articles and images per episode

My esperience with some lists has made me come to the conclusion that a crucial concensus on the issues of screenshot images per episode' and articles per episode is needed.

Fistly, I must remind all interested people that concensus doesn't involve voting at all. We must put all the cards on the table, we must quote here all the significant guidelines that support each point of view in a clear way. And for that purpose I suggest copypasting in italics the most important part of the existing guidelines that defend our poits of view and [[WP:Indicate the page where we found them]].

Seconly, I'll explain both problems:

a)Images per episode in the List of episodes: People are constantly retiring or adding them making adit wars in the process. The current guidelines favor the use of them (assuming of course they will have the propper copyfight and source information in order). Several featured lists (WP:FL) are episode lists with images per episodes, however, some poeple are retiring their images because they feel they're only "decorative" and therefore violate the FUC(Non-Free Content criteria). I, myself favor the other side of the coin, feeling the images not only are a way of sourcing such articles and are key to identify the episodes (regular readers wont be able to identify an episode only with the title, and scaning the entire article for the right synopsis is tiresome).
We must research guidelines to finally determine wherther or not an article must have images per episode when they are available. We must also determine if there are exceptions to the rule and why. Then, after determining our position, we must write down a guideline (fist in the talk page and then in the WikiProject).

b)Articles per episode: After exploring several examples and the current guidelines, the way I see it, they should be freely created in two situations:
A. When an episode synopsis in the episode list grow too big. Veryfiable info should never be just cut down, it since it's already available,and it forms part of the sum of all human knowledge, the details should be moved to a subsidiary page (according to WP:SS and WP:SIZE).
B. When somebody can sit and take the bother of properly (verifiable original info) creating the entire thing in an afternoon or so.
C. A third situation would be stubs. We should also determine wherther or not episode article stubs are ok.
However, I've seen people voting (again voting goes against wikipedia policies) in list of episodes against boht expanding the synopsis and creating episode articles. I've even seen people redirecting complete episode articles, full with cast, trivia, plot, images and box verifiable and sourced info, into the corresponding episode list.
Situations like that only happen because of the lack of determinatd guidelines. These guidelines should also determine wherther or not there are reasons to make exceptions and explain them.

(the Articles per Episode situation was solved thanks to Ned Scott's quotes. Focus on the image thing--T-man, the wise 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your attention. --T-man, the wise 05:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


Images in LOEs are out, end of story. We've been over this enough. As for episode articles, WP:EPISODE already takes care of that. If an episode's content in an article is nothing put plot summary, then it should not be expanded to an episode article (WP:PLOT). -- Ned Scott 05:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You're totally missing the point. If they are out, we must write down the guideline: something like The usage of images per episode in episode list is never alouded. I'm talking about writting down propper guidelines in the WikiProject to avoid further warring and pointless argues.
On the episode thing you're right, when WP:EPISODE clearly states that the only logical reason to avoid the creation of an episode article or delete a stub is the lack of sources (Are more sources available? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it).
However, you misquoted WP:PLOT. The actual content indicate: Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. Wich from the WP:EPISODE perspective indicate that when an episode article only contents a plot summary, it should be expanded with cast, production info, trivia and context references. In the rare case such info is not available the synopsis should be merged. (btw, don't worry Ned, I won't be ussing this conclusion to open old wounds, I'll only deal with the issue in this space with no further direct repercutions). --T-man, the wise 05:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no actual policy/guideline prohibiting images in LOEs, it's just several disruptive users make unilateral removals. I imagine they'll be back soon. As for episode articles: things such as writers/directors and ratings information are real world context. Also ratings information shows impact and is historically significant. Matthew 07:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How about Writting down: When images with copyright holder and source information in order are available, as the template indicates, the episode list can include images to help identify the episodes. The size of the image goes up to 180px, depending on the size of the table.
My grammar and spelling can be troubled, English is my second language.--T-man, the wise 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Use of images also needs to meet WP:NONFREE meaning screenshots must be used for criticial commentary. Some editors are also removing images based on sheer numbers since "minimal" nonfree use is recommended (although that's a general term and there isn't consensus on how "minimal" is defined). Use of nonfree images isn't forbidden in lists, but if you're going to add some, make absolutely sure the text justifies their use as "critical commentary" and be conservative in the number you add. I'd be curious to see what the response would be to adding one or two images to episodes on a list with a strong justification per "critical commentary". I hate to not AGF, but recent editor actions have given more of an impression of a bias against screenshots than wanting to actually follow policy. --Minderbinder 12:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

LOE templates

Just thinking to myself recently that there are some to-do's in mind for the WP:LOE templates (Template:Episode list and Template:Japanese episode list)

  1. Update instructions now that the Image parameter has been taken out
  2. Update the code (linked to on the talk page) once all lists are reformatted correctly
  3. Page anchors. Document and spread the word about episode anchors, as most people probably don't know about them (you can link to a specific spot in a LOE using the templates by using the episode number or production code, for example List of Lost episodes#ep33)
  4. Apply new sortable templates. On List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes we debuted our first sortable episode list that contains a summary under a title/airdate/etc row. Currently the templates have some limitations, like no Aux or AltDate parameters, but hopefully that too will be fixed. They can sort by 3 episode numbers, plus prod code and title of episode. The two templates are Template:S-Episode list and Template:S-Japanese episode list. Right now only two lists use S-Japanese episode list, and none use S-Episode list. Finding more lists that can benefit from being sortable (shows that had different airing orders in different places, for example) would be great.
Note, episode lists using the template, but without summaries, can already be sortable.

Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You aren't going to force the sortable thing on all LOEs are you? I can't stand that. I can see the value for shows there were released in a different order then they were filmed (although that would take some good research to find RS that verify when they were filmed), but not for general LOEs that usually film in the order in which they are released. Can is be made so that you can adjust each sortable column individually, while keeping the others where you sort them? Right now, when you sort one column on Haruhi, the other two revert back to their default state.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bignole about the sorting (we discussed it before didn't we?) Matthew 23:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Only a minority of LOEs will likely benefit from the sortable version, which is why it has a separate template. I'm not sure I understand what you (Bignole) mean about the Haruhi problem you are having. What web browser are you using? -- Ned Scott 23:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Explorer. When I'm look at the 3 sortable columns on the right. Let's say I click the middle one, and it sorts from top to bottom. Then, lets say that I want to sort the first column from top to bottom as well. When I do, it resets the middle column back to its original state. I was wondering if there was a way to make it stay in the order that I selected, while I'm reordering another column this way all the columns can be made to sort the same way together.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sortable tables don't work like that. They sort the entire table row. If you click on another column then the entire row will resort. There wouldn't be a point to it if only the column sorted, but no other numbers, titles, or summaries sorted with it. -- Ned Scott 23:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
For example, "The Adventures of Mikuru Asahina Episode 00" is the first episode to air (anachronically) and first on DVD, but it is the 11th episode chronologically. No matter what sortable view you are in, 01-11-01 will always line up because those values are unchanging to "The Adventures of Mikuru Asahina Episode 00". -- Ned Scott 23:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How many LOEs actually have a different chronological order, DVD order, and anachronical order for each of the areas? You answered my question awhile ago when you said that it would be those that fit the bill, so everything is irrelevant. Especially when I just stop and think about it, and I see that it isn't confusing really, just looks more confusing when you just click the sort thing and aren't paying attention.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

Sourcing, a paramount concern...

I'm growing increasingly worried with the problem of sourcing TV articles/LOEs, etc. For example, people see fit to remove secondary sources from episodes after they've aired... this is not good, I'm the first to admit that primary sources are perfectly fine... but removing secondary sources? Then there's stuff that's never sourced. Any uncited information should be removed, aggressively[1] if we are to produce quality articles. Matthew 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Could provide an example of what you are referring to with people removing a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, and that's just one - of many. Matthew 22:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it only with the titles of episodes?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Citation rules apply to episode number/air date, etc... people are removing citations that verify information contained. I don't believe this is good. Matthew 22:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In general I see this is a problem, but for the episode number, people can count the episodes. 22 is 22 no matter how you slice it. Is the same website being used to cite the title, number, dates etc?? If it's the basic information about the show (title, date, etc), I would think that I simple link to the official website (if it exists) or to another reliable source would suffice.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Anybody can count yes, but who's to say that x episode is y number? (a source). This is not an isolated issue, I've seen it happen for quite some time. MoS:L#Position in article states: "Links not used as sources can be listed in the External links section", the issue I see is not with external linkage - rather sourcing. Matthew 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Per verifiability it should be based on whether it will likely be challenged. Not saying you should add what you will and hope that it won't be challenged, but I would think that you don't need to cite the name of a film (one that have been released, not pending films), because it isn't something likely to be challenged. I'm kind of conflicted on this issue. It seems like stuff that can be easily verified without citation, but on the other hand, I see your concern about its remove and the possibility of challenging when an episode actually aired, or what number it was in ther series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
That's because films are basically self-citing (plot, etc...) - the same goes for episodes. What concerns me is users actually removing secondary sources just because an episode has aired... Matthew 22:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Then what do you propose?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If people remove citations then they should be reverted, imo. Also content in any article (main television, episode, etc) that's uncited and likely to be challenged should be wholesale removed until cited, we have tons of articles with {{cn}}s/other templates. Matthew 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I got that, but you admitted that episodes are self citing, just like films, when it comes to the basic information about them. So, at what point does an episode lose/gain that self citing ability? At one point do we say "sorry you have to provide a source for the title of this episode", or "no, it's fine, the episode itself is proof that the title is ...., or that it's number ..."? Never?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the episode is a primary source (for more information on primary/secondary see WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). Primary sources are not bad. All the same, we should encourage use of secondary sources. WP:NOR states: "most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources", but does state that primary sources are "allowed". Matthew 23:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I know that, but it seems that a secondary source would really only be necessary for things that would be easily challenged. I don't generally come across too many episode title's that are challenged after they've aired. Before, I can see that, because something could happen in the last second the the title can change, but not after the fact. The same goes for the date something aired. The episode airing on October 8, 2006 should be the only citation necessary for something that's already occurred. An official website can generally verify anything that isn't normally challenged.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's like I stated up the page: "MoS:L#Position in article states: 'Links not used as sources can be listed in the External links section'". To be clear: It's my belief we should encourage usage of secondary rather then primary sources wherever possible. Matthew 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I get that, and I agree, but for things that are challengable. Production information can be easily challenged. How the episode was received is easily challenged. But I disagree when it comes to episode titles, airdates, and other basic info requiring a secondary source after the episode in question has been aired. That's just my opinion. Hopefully some others will join in and we can get some other opinions on this matter.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Episode list - images removed

If you haven't already, go check out the talk on Template:Episode list. The template has been changed to exclude images, which has had the unforseen effect of altering layout. Episode lists may need to be corrected and adjusted. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Ugh

Is it really neccesary to note in an article when something appeared in Family Guy? I see this all over the place and it's really annoying. Jtrainor 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then remove it. Please don't flag all WP:TV editors as "people who add cruft" --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Chase Sampson

Someone believes a person who got the first question wrong on the US Who Wants to be a Millionaire deserves their own article, and appears to be engaged in either sock or meatpuppetry to argue against the speedy delete. Can I request some people from this project come and comment on this matter please? DarkSaber2k 09:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you care

How is posting on another blog to rally other forum members (trolling) to sway your opinion not a offence somehow? — RX82004 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

YouThe other guy said lets get more peoples comments, so rather than create other accounts to back my viewpoint, I'm throwing it open to the Television project, as was suggested. DarkSaber2k 09:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a separate account owned by a separate person. I don't have time to reward myself the duty of editing other people's articles on Wikipedia, let alone create another account to fuel the fire. Fenix 09:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Aquaman (TV program) is up for FAC. I believe that Project TV could deliver some harsh critiquing of the article, something it needs in order to better itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on people, this is a television program up for Featured Article status. Let's support our troops, so to speak, and help get this thing over the line and into the coveted heirarchy of honors. This thing has been sitting in FAC for over a month with only a few people actually commenting on it. Let's Wikiban together and get this FAC moving.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving

He guys. Well over a year ago I tried to revitilize this project. With several editors we have seen some improvements stemming from our work, but all in all it has just not proven worth it. I'm sorry I have to do this, but i'm leaving this WikiProject, my involvement with any fictional topic, guideline, template etc. The problem is that I feel other editors are not taking me seriously for being part of this project. My edits and discussion in other areas, especially where it concerns copyright and image policies are being flatly ignored or marked as a "it's another TV guy", if I don't agree with them. I feel that I cannot edit freely enough within wikipedia by being part of this project and I care a lot about my freedom. I will probably focus myself more on space and software related articles. I wish everyone a lot of joy and pleasure trying to improve the Television articles and I'm sure the project will be instrumental in solving all the issues that we currently have. I'll just won't be part of it. Bye --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sad that you're leaving, I've thought about it myself a few times lately. As you say "it's another TV guy", well this is actually how they perceive us (the "admins", on IRC), often having a nice "chit-chat" about us TV folk. I do hope you come back to this project eventually! Lord knows, we do disagree... but I *do* respect you. (Oh, and do you use TV.com?) Matthew 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes we sure often disagree, but at least I could understand where you were coming from and respect that. However I feel that for myself it's better to no longer be involved with this topic, and then wikipedia as a whole might see more of me in the end. Oh and I do use tv.com, but not registered. I really care about wikipedia and television, but have absolutely zero desire to contribute to tv.com I hope someone will be so nice to keep an eye at all the WP:TV stubs, templates and categories. I've already cleaned them out of my watchlist to protect myself from editing :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a fair few things watchlisted I'll watch out for. I actually quite disliked TV.com at first, but I'm spending more time there than here lately (and most of the community is surprisingly nice... though there are some very possessive editors). I'm really beginning to distance myself from the community, I just don't feel things work the way they should (for example this community is supposed to work on consensus, not sysop opinion decided on #wikipedia-en-admins). Perhaps some day the light will be rekindled and we can all work as a community, I don't think that can happen without some big overhauls. Wikipedia has an effect on me, it used to make me happy to edit... now it just makes me sad a bit :-(. Matthew 00:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Internation Broadcaster Tables

I've noticed several shows that over the past year have accumulated extremely large tables of international broadcasters. I don't have a problem with these tables as it is very relevant information, however these tables can and do take up a TON of space on the shows main article page. Here is a list of several shows that have these tables so that you can see what I'm talking about:

As you can see there is three main ways of dealing with these lists. Table form, text only, or not at all. Personally I don't think these lists belong on the main article and should be either put on the accompanying List of Episodes for that show or given it's own article. Additionally I think that the format should be standardized into the table format and a template created to make it easier to build the lists for new shows as they premier. Finally lets not turn this into any kinda of vote, just weigh in with your thoughts and lets see where we stand for now.

-- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer text only (as then we can also use neat columns). Also, a lot of stuff people add (such as "schedule") information to tables trying to turn it into a TV Guide. Matthew 08:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The table in Nip/Tuck is now over half of the article size. Do we need this? We aren't TV Guide. If someone in Albania wants to watch it, they can look in their own listings. I propose we remove these. --Golbez 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Broadcasters

"Broadcasters" (example) should be removed — these change constantly and are outdated quickly, so they can never become encyclopedic. Removed these from Family Guy[2] (with some resistance[3]) and Sex and the City[4]. Relevant policies:

Similar sections certainly can be found in other articles. Without addressing any specific article, these should probably all be removed as well. / edg ☺ ★ 00:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed broadcasters lists from the following:

International broadcasters for 24 (TV series)

More interestingly, I've nominated International broadcasters for 24 (TV series) (a stand-alone article) in Articles for Deletion. This should get us a few more opinions, and maybe a precedent. / edg ☺ ★ 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. The result was Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs (TV series)

Deletion of international broadcasters list (entitled Around the world) is currently being challenged in Talk:Scrubs (TV series). / edg ☺ ★ 00:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is resolved. Both RfC comments agreed delete per WP:NOT#DIR. / edg ☺ ★ 03:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heroes (TV series)

New, typically angry challenge to deleting International Broadcasters in Talk:Heroes (TV_series)#The_international_broadcaster_list. Typical objections: disputes all previous decisions, says there is insufficient precedent, and that this has nothing to do with WP:NOT. Should I take this to another forum for discussion? Tired of debating this repeatedly. / edg ☺ ★ 03:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant AfD decision on broadcasters lists

There's been a lot of precedent for these lists to be deleted. Most recently, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series) decided to delete solely on grounds of Wikipedia is not a directory (AKA Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide). This is significant because this suggests the lists themselves are unencyclopedic, whether or not they are subject to becoming outdated (per WP:DATED, mentioned in the nomination but not in the deletion decision).

(Whoever disagrees with this decision can take it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review, but a really solid argument should be presented for any attempt to overturn precedent.)

The WikiProject Countering systemic bias concern for writing articles from an "international perspective" was brought up in defense of broadcasters lists. This got little traction.

Delete these tables/lists on sight. Within broadcasts sections, preserve only:

  • Original broadcasters, like network the show was made for, or on which an episode was first broadcast.
  • Non-broadcast information mixed in, such as info on translations (if non-trivial), or (possibly, if seriously notable) ratings info

Otherwise, these lists don't belong on Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ★ 08:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Precedents for deleting broadcasters

WP:ALLORNOTHING is a typical objection to this deletion, so I'll add these as I find them to document it's "all".

Just do what WP:ANIME does

Not sure what all the fuss is about, but WP:ANIME solved this problem via hide/show in an infobox. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live episodes

What are your thoughts on articles for each Saturday Night Live episode? I have constructed a model article for Scarlett Johansson/Bjork. Vast information is available on every episode on many database sites. List any thoughts on the format/etc. here. Weatherman90 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :-)! Matthew 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes (especially the bottom for a small list of FA articles on tv episodes, those are templates for what should be in those articles) and Wikipedia:Television episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Make sure you can find more than just the "plot" of the episodes. Without any production or reception notes, they'll fail WP:EPISODE. Please try to do that before making more articles rather than after. Personally, I really don't think that many of them be able to pass it. A few like the Ashlee Simpson lip synching one may be able to, though. TTN 00:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't seem to find much as to ratings, reception and production. I'm not sure if they all need this, as most episodes of The Office, listed here, don't have them. If anyone knows of a website that can give ratings for each episode, let me know. Weatherman90 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Individual episode articles shouldn't be nothing more than plots and trivia. Not every episode will be able to satisfy the requirements of the indy eps guidelines.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a rather bad idea, given the structure of SNL. Oddly enough, I've seen more individual skits be notable, rather than an "episode" be notable (can I get some more cowbell?). Exceptions might be when information is relating to a specific host, etc, but even then there's usually better formatting options. You can't really treat SNL like a normal TV show, and I can't help but think that people want to make these episodes only because "other shows have them", which is not a reason to make episode articles. -- Ned Scott 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
And I want to stress that my objection is with the format, not the whole "episode article or not" thing. SNL is a unique show, regardless of how you feel about episode articles. -- Ned Scott 01:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I just thought of another format SNL tends to be in, an article for a specific "character" or other type of reoccurring sketch, such as Wayne's World or The Church Lady. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches, there we go, that's what I'm talking about. Those articles already cover the notable content found in individual episodes, and do so more accurately (More cowbell was a notable sketch, but that doesn't make all sketches on that same episode as notable). -- Ned Scott 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is a better chance of notable sketches than notable episodes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I see your point - the notable sketch articles should be expanded and/or created. Weatherman90 02:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it needs to be determined which ones are notable. Otherwise we'll have 10 times as many articles than we normally would for just an article on an episode.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings up for deletion

Should we have spoiler warnings in articles or not? Discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about when not to use spoiler templates is now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Kusma (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merger

There is a proposed merger going on at Smallville season 1. It's in regards to the episode articles. Though I'd let everyone know here.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

International Airings

In light of the discussion here, I am opening it here.. Anyway, there are debates going around whether to keep or remove the 'International' airings area of many TV programme articles. So, express whether you want to keep the international airings, or delete.. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I vote to delete, because Wikipedia is not a TV guide, those sections are completely uncited [in all the articles I've seen with them], so the info could be completely false.. Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I agree with the removal of such sections. Wikipedia is not a tv guide. Even when sourced the info is unencyclopedic. In general only the airings of the original country should be put in the article. And in some cases international info. But not sentences like "Latin America: The third season is currently running on TNT Latin America on Saturdays at 3:00 pm" Garion96 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S. nielsen television ratings (1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2003-2004)

Hi, I am assembling a list of Nielsen ratings pages from 1999-present. I currently have the link of them for the seasons of 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. These links will be for say someone wants to add a U.S. television ratings section for seasons 1999-present.. ThanksCheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 22:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is one for 1999-2000 and another for 2000-2001. --Maitch 06:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks alot, Maitch, and I did find 2003-2004, so now I'm set. Also, I will credit you for finding these :) Cheers—Illyria05 Ring•Contrib. 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Titles in other languages

As per Wikipedia not beeing an indiscriminate collection of information, a list of titles in other languages is unacceptable in an article, is it? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is. If it's a non English show/book/film than the original language title and the English title should be mentioned. But not a list of translations of Ducktales (recent example) in 20 languages. Garion96 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Unless there's something notable about the different titles in different languages, then yeah. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Right then, thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T-borg) (drop me a line) 18:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
If people want a translation of a title to another language they can just follow one of the interwikis. --Maitch 19:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode redirects

Just to let you know that User:TTN is blanking episode pages and redirecting them to the main series page, believing that they ALL contravene WP:EPISODE. In the past 24 hours he has done this to Yes, Minister, Yes, Prime Minister, Foyle's War, The Cosby Show, Cupid, Iron Man, Twin Peaks, Nip/Tuck... now I've got bored of looking through his contributions history. Some people are going to get very angry if consensus is not reached regarding what constitutes a good episode page, and when they should be used. Gwinva 06:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

See also discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Using Wikipedia:Television episodes. Rather than everyone getting heated about individual redirects, perhaps Wikiproject television together should determine policy/consensus, (including input from User:TNN). Gwinva 13:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently trying to get many redirected at Smallville, but I'm holding a discussion on the season's talk page. There, I've proposed a new layout for the season page that addresses the concern about non-free images, keeps plots in check, and allows for an area where you would put production and critical reaction type information. Sometimes it's easier to find reactions for an entire season, than for every episode in a given season, because many episodes do not even come close to what was decided in the debate over them.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

The following is a copy of the message I posted at AN/I regarding the redirect issue.

"I'll preface my remarks by saying that AN/I probably isn't the place for a discussion over Wikipedia guidelines. With that in mind, however, the way TTN is proceeding - and the scale of it - should not be permitted until a consensus on the larger issue can be achieved. Whether consciously or not, the Wikipedia community has permitted the creation of these articles, and allowed them to develop and grow - not for days, or weeks, but for *years*. This is not a question of a few random pages that don't meet guidelines - we're talking about literally thousands of pages, and tens of thousands of hours of work by good, solid contributors. We're talking about the Television project, dozens of related sub-projects, and all the rules, guidelines, and procedures developed within those structures with the goal of standardizing content and creating professional product. We're talking about editors who - on a daily basis - struggle to maintain a strong body of pop-culture content. Not only are they having to weed out the constant onslaught of speculation, trivia, and fan-boy debris, but they are also having to work within a community that, to some degree, "looks down" on their efforts as being "less than worthy". (See this note from TheDJ) TTN says "go to TV.com and Wikia" - but that is *not* the same thing. Speaking for myself, if I wanted speculation, fan theories, and "what if" scenarios, sure, I'd go to those sites. That, however, is *not* what I want out of an article, and not what I want to work on. Whether you like pop-culture articles or not shouldn't be the issue here - it should be about showing a certain degree of respect for your fellow Wikipedians. TTN's actions, I'm sorry to say, do not meet that mark." (Ckatz)

I strongly support Gwinva's suggestion that this project *as a whole* should work to develop a solution, rather than having to react to a unilateral action. --Ckatzchatspy 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest discussion on this takes place at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#DISCUSSING THE GUIDELINE. Gwinva 21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The Price Is Right

The Price Is Right (US game show) is up for FAC. Since there haven't been any substantial comments as of yet, I'm looking for a few sharp eyes. So please, c'mon down! —Twigboy 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: FA failed ostensibly due to lack of comments.—Twigboy 15:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I Love Lucy

This article needs massive cleanup, it has multiple trivia sections and a huge lead. Aaron Bowen 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of good information though, if anyone wants to clean it up and source it. Aaron Bowen 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode task force seeing new life

Anyone who hasn't done so already should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes and it's talk page. How to handle episode articles that don't pass WP:EPISODE, expanding WP:EPISODE, and more, are currently being discussed, and we're making some great progress. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

More development: WikiProject Television/Episodes and WikiProject Television/Episode lists have now merged to form WikiProject Television/Episode coverage. This was done to better organize all articles relating to episode-level detail, as well as provide a place for "in-between" areas like season / series articles, and to provide over-all advice on how to grow this information. This is, of course, related to the WP:EPISODE expansion as well. -- Ned Scott 01:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Article request

We need an article for Wraparound (television) to explain what a wraparound is and give notable examples of how they have been used. Articles routinely reference this concept without explanation, and I personally don't know how to explain it to create an article myself. If you use WP's search function for the terms "wraparound" and "television" in the same article, you turn up some 60-70 articles that mention shows that began as wraparounds or notable actors who worked in wraparound segments. This is a technical term and a concept that has a pretty interesting history, especially in early television, and it would be nice to have an article on it if someone knows enough to start a good one. Lawikitejana 02:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

TV template nominated for deletion

I'm not sure where your project puts notices of TfDs, so I'm posting this here. The template {{TV-in-universe}} has been nominated for deletion. --GentlemanGhost 21:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE, our guideline for articles on episodes

Some of you might be aware of WP:EPISODE, which is our guideline for dealing with articles about an individual episode from a show. Before it had the shortcut WP:EPISODE and the current title, Wikipedia:Television episodes, it was known as Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes [10]. Well, it still says pretty much the same thing as before, but some recent redirecting of episode articles that weren't seen as notable lead us to some new activity on the talk page of WP:EPISODE. We're now looking for input and comments to expanding the guideline at WT:EPISODE#Suggested expansion of guidelines. -- Ned Scott 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Schedules & program lists

There's more discussion recently about schedules & program lists at WT:NOT#Schedules & program lists. Editors are asking for clarification on, and possibly updating, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#DIRECTORY part 3. The policy currently reads:

Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages.

Feel free to join in the discussion and give your input. -- Ned Scott 04:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Parker Lewis Can't Lose

Could any of our experts take a look at expanding/fixing Parker Lewis Can't Lose? (if they can help with Maia Brewton it would be a bonus) PMA 13:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Decade categories

I've copied this from Category talk:1970s American television series and hoped to get some sort of opinion on it. I'm just wondering what qualifies a show for inclusion in this category? The paragraph says that it is shows that originated in the US during the decade and I take that to mean shows that began to air during the '70s. I guess it could also mean just shows that aired during the decade, but it would seem pointless to me for every show to be in a category for every decade that it aired. There are ending categories as well as debut categories for series debuting and ending in certain years, so I would think that as long as a series had those categories it wouldn't need ever other decade that it aired, only the original decade that it started. Any thoughts on this? Phydend 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Current TV show template

I'm suggesting that it be modified to be clearer that the article may contain spoilers - that is, it sort of implies it now, but not quite so much. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask on WP:SPOILER first. I'm not sure how well received the idea will be, given the current spoiler warning dispute. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I remember one of the arguments being that they couldn't include certain info in the lead because of spoiler warnings. However, current shows should not have major spoilers in the leads. On top of that, I think the template right now already does what a spoiler warning would do - warn them of the contents of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Episode coverage

The WikiProject Television episode coverage taskforce have recently been working on a review process for episode articles. There are a rash of articles about individual episodes which fail notability, and are unlikely to ever reach such requirements. Many contributors are unaware of the specific guidelines to assess notability in episode pages: Wikipedia:Television episodes. We have expanded these guidelines to make them more helpful and explanatory, and we invite you to read the guidelines, and make any comments on its talk page. After much discussion, we have created a proposed review process for dealing with problem articles. See: Wikipedia:Television article review process. We invite discussion of this process on its talk page. General comments about this whole process are welcome at the episode coverage taskforce talkpage. Thanks! Gwinva 10:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of works produced by Hanna-Barbera

This article needs to be restructured into a more accessible format. User:The Tramp was working on a table version, but the best solution would require input from more than one person. Can we get some discussion going on this? --FuriousFreddy 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dated episode notability

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

$10,000, $100,000 pyramid page.

Kief Ferrandini and Tom Poston's contestant were NOT the same person! Look at the youtube "things that are enshrined" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RzlY9on_EQ and youtube "new record" http://youtube.com/watch?v=OFyVrGOsVEg. There is not even a remote resemblance. Her name, was actually "Kris". Dick Clark called her by that. ----

Greek (TV series)

Someone from this project may want to take a look at Greek (TV series). It's only had one episode and looks like it needs some standardizing to the format of other tv shows. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for Pilots?

I think pilots that aren't picked up by networks are notable enough to warrant mentions, but I don't think they deserve their own articles, but how about listing them, descriptions, and their casts on pages such as '2006 CBS Pilots', '2007 FOX Pilots' etc. --IvanKnight69 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean, Aquaman (TV program) isn't worth mentioning in its own article?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My Musical

Hey guys, the Scrubs episode "My Musical" article has been put up for peer review here. If anyone here, with your (presumably) special knowledge of Wikipedia television coverage, could contribute anything to the review, it would be greatly apprecitated. Thanks! --Gpollock 20:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Beadle's About

Hi, this is my first post so I hope I am putting this in the correct place. I've looked at the archives but this hasn't been mentioned. This is about the prank which went wrong with all the identical cars in the car park and the woman who sussed it was Jeremy Beadle behind it. As I remember it, this was on Game for a Laugh, not Beadle's About. I am sure Beadle introduced the item saying "does everyone want to see a prank that went wrong?" or words to that effect. I'm sure they then showed it. This is how I remember it, so apologies if this is wrong but someone may wish to check.

Rich680 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indicating a page is about a show and the characters in show?

A comment by a user on Pinky and the Brain brought up a good point that the article, as written, talks both about the characters and the show. It's near impossible to separate them, so it's more a matter of having something prior to the lead to indicate that the article covers both. I presently used the dablink generic template, but I was wondering if such a situation has occurred before here, and what that solution was, or if there's a better template/message to suit the need. --Masem 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone that is an expert on Charmed?

The episodes (from several I noticed): are cluttered with trivia. For a full list, see: Category:Charmed episodes. RobJ1981 06:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Television template

{{WikiProject Television}} is a little ungainly for a template name. If there were a shorter name it would be more likely that people would remember to put it up. What about {{tvproj}} (similar to {{WikiProject Video games}}) or {{teleproj}}? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles on the DuckTales episodes need some serious clean up.

Main discussion: DuckTales#The episodes (If you're watching this page, please read.)

If you have any DVDs of DuckTales, or recorded episodes, or a channel that shows DuckTales(it doesn't have to be in an English, people not from English-speaking country are more than welcome to help.) please use these sources to help you with the cleanup, and try to clean up. TheBlazikenMaster 09:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Help! Where can I get international ratings numbers?

Hi, I'm doing an FA for a television episode right now, but then someone complained that I only have ratings for the UK and US. Does anyone know any website where I can find out how many people watched an episode from the following countries: Canada (what's sad is that this is where I live), South Korea, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Greece, Poland, Australia and Argentina? Please respond if you know anything. --thedemonhog talk • edits 16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I say, in the least, you need not worry about any of the countries who do not speaking english as their primary language. Unless the episode broke records there, general info about those countries is usually not even included on film articles which are much more likely to garner attention all of the world than a television show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Colbert Report

The Colbert Report is now a Featured Article Candidate here. Since it's within the scope of this wikiproject, I thought anyone interested could take a look and support or oppose. Cheers, Jude. 18:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review for Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article

*As stated on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas talk page, I have requested that the Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone article be peer-reviewed. I would appreciate any comments from you all as well concerning this article. Here's the internal link to its peer review...Wikipedia:Peer review/Bianca Montgomery and Maggie Stone/archive1. Flyer22 07:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo ID help

Can anyone familiar with Spike TV identify this person with the first name 'Nicole'? Thanks! Videmus Omnia Talk 15:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - it's Nicole Malgarini, who doesn't have an article. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Significance" sections in episode articles

In the Format section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article, it says to add a paragraph called Significance, which will "explain the significance the episode has in relation to the series;" however, none of the featured episode articles have such a section? Should they or is the page outdated? --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought that was odd, especially since you don't see such things in movie trilogies. I would vote for its removal, because it's asking for an interpretation of how a specific episode impacts a series. And if it wants reliable secondary stories, then that stuff might as well go in another section anyway.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I added a "Significance" section to Homer's Phobia during its FAC, but it wasn't popular and was reworked into the current "Theme" section. I think it should be removed from the guide line. --Maitch 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed it. --thedemonhog talk • edits 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity deathmatch

A user is creating multiple articles on individual episodes of celebrity deathmatch - there are two problems - 1) the articles are...well... awful, entirely what encyclopedia articles should not be. 2) what is notable about each of those individual episodes? nothing as far as I can see - the show consists of Puppet X vs puppet Y week in, week out - what is really required beyond a single episode guide paper? I'm a little out of touch with the guidelines around individual episode pages but thought they had to demonstrate some level of real-world notability or significant beyond "this exists"? Even if those pages should exist, massive clean-up is required at present. --Fredrick day 15:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The A-Team

Hello folks, I'm not a member of this project, but I would like to ask you to take a look at The A-Team. I have recently done some heavy editing on the article, although it's far from finished, I think it's coming along nicely. That however, is my own biased view on the matter, so I'd like a 3rd party opinion, which would be yours. Thoughts? Kusonaga 16:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Kusonaga 12:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Answered at User talk:Kusonaga. – sgeureka t•c 13:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

I have added a section to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television to contain information on nominations for deletion via the WP:PROD path. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce for Frasier

Hi, can we have a taskforce for Frasier. Anyone interested in creating episodes for Frasier or expanding the articles for Frasier, please create this taskforce. Right now, about 80 epiosdes have their own articles. It would be nice if we could have an article for all 264 articles--60.234.55.135 20:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that would be the best idea. Might want to check out WP:EPISODE before making more episode articles. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reality TV star noteability guidelines

Hello, I've just created a seperate page proposing guidlines for noteability of Reality TV contestants and if they should have their own articles. I did this due to the mass number of articles being created and deleted on these subjects in recent months, and confusion among editors if they are in fact noteable or not. You can read this here. All edits and comments on the talk page are welcome. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC).

Bug

There is a bug in the infobox template. Every page with it has a "- |}" in it at the very top. Somebody fix it please. vlad§inger tlk 03:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I reverted all of Wikiipedian's edits, because it wasn't there yesterday and so I went back a full day, but it's still there. I have no idea what is going on. I can't find any stray codes at the top of the box. Also, what was up with Wikiipedian's "German, Slovakian, Poland, etc ratings"?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

TV pregnancies

Hi all, I started Pregnancy on television in my userspace. Originally I wanted to write about how TV deals with actresses who become pregnant (such as the Hunter Tylo case) and how TV either acknowledges or hides the pregnancy in the fictional universe of the show. However, I've also set aside space for reality pregnancy shows like the ones on Discovery Health. I would appreciate community comments before I finish it up and move it to article space. Thanks! Wl219 03:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request feedback on guidelines

I would like to have the feedback of active wikiproject members on the following. Wikipedia has a number of guidelines on articles about fiction, predominantly WP:FICT and WP:WAF. These guidelines have been rewritten some time ago, but this appears to have been done without substantial input from editors who write about fiction.

Guidelines on Wikipedia are supposed to be a description of common practice. At present, however, these guidelines call for the removal of most material that does not include real-world information, which could be read as to include most articles about fictional characters, locations and concepts, such as those about most television series.

This does not reflect actual practice, because Wikipedia has thousands of such articles. Now there's no need for alarm, because to my knowledge, nobody is actually deleting any of this. However, it would be prudent to reword and update the aforementioned guidelines to accurately reflect how, and on which aspects, articles on fiction are written.

Please feel free to update the guidelines as needed, or direct your feedback to their respective talk pages. >Radiant< 10:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Some time ago? You are aware that both of those pages were just recently rewritten and reproposed for guideline status, right? The fact that people ignore them under the guise of "Wiki is not paper" (which actually shows a lack of understanding of that policy) doesn't negate the practice of the guidelines. I have written plenty of articles on fictional topics, and thoroughly believe in those two guidelines. You say "this isn't the standard practice," but I'd like to point out that the standard practice of a page being created and run into the ground because of disregard for these guidelines, and the standard practice of what is accepted in an FAC are completely different.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring to debates such as these AFDs, where one side says to delete the articles because they fail the guideline, and the other side disagrees. Despite your claim, it does not appear to be standard practice. >Radiant< 12:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What did I claim? I said that it is for an FAC. You mean to tell me that "Media in The Simpsons" is FA material? So, I should have left that Jason Voorhees article like this, instead of how it currently is? I just looked at the Media in the Simpsons page, and it's horrible. It really fails WAF, even after you said "there are books on this stuff". I don't know what those books are, but if they are simply a retelling of the fictional world, and not of real world content, then they are not viable for establishing notability. Also, The Simpsons is a horrible example to use, because that WikiProject is so huge and so active that anytime anything goes up for AfD, no matter how concrete a case may be, there are too many of them to sway the discussion. I'm also sorry to say that I've seen too many closing admins count votes instead of actually reading what is being said. Regardless, the existence of a POS article, or even 10,000 POS articles has nothing to do with the problem of the guidelines, but with the problem of editors not enforcing them. If you leave the gate open and the cattle get out, do you blame the gate?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, by "run into the ground" you meant "not made a featured article"? I thought you meant "deleted". I was thinking of the rather large middle ground of articles that are neither feature-worthy nor delete-worthless. >Radiant< 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No, no, don't get me wrong here. I don't believe that every article can be featured, but I do believe that all should strive for that quality. When I said run into the ground, I mean, they are not even GA status, and they are only B status because they have a lot of information (yet none of it is relevant in an encyclopedia, they way they've presented it). There is a difference between standing at the door and not being let in, and not being anywhere near the line for the door. That Media article has no real world content. Wikipedia isn't a fansite, it's an encyclopedia. It is meant for everywhere, not just fans of The Simpsons, who have the only invested interest in a page that merely recycles information about what fictional news station was on the show. How about talking on how those news stations are portrayed, in comparison to "real world" news stations. Not only does that article fail notability, since it doesn't have any sources listed showing significant coverage anywhere, but it's entirely IU. Simply saying "this is fictional" doesn't change the fact that it's still all IU information. There is a reason we have WP:PLOT, because people should not be creating articles that are simply plots of television shows, films, books, etc. It's one thing to have an episode article that just does not have enough information to show it was notable outside the series, but it may have enough OOU info (in the way of production information) to warrant separation on its own, and maybe even be GA status. It may have 2 reviews, which show coverage outside the source, and tons of production material, but just not enough to be considered "the best of Wikipedia." But then you have episode articles that are all plot, trivia (nothing relevant in the trivia, just lots of OR), quote sections (have a separate wiki for that) or some other meaningless crap on there that isn't relevant or verifiable. One can argue, "well it has the chance," but that isn't the purpose of either FICT in establishing notability. As Cuba Gooding Jr. would say, "show me the money," in this case that means sources. These articles exist purely under the guise that "they can be fixed," when in reality they cannot, or at least they've shown no clues that they can. If you want an article that is strictly about IU information, go to a Wikia. That is what they are there for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I wish I can find where I said it, but my take on it is this: common practice isn't always how guidelines are set, nor should they be. If they were then typos would be recommended. It is because we have so many fictional articles in a bad state that we require these kinds of guidelines, to help clean up the articles. While a mass of fans of some shows might not like that 30 pages of plot summary is frowned upon, that alone doesn't create a Wikipedia consensus, since we look at the arguments along with the number of arguments. WAF and FICT take their roots from other guidelines and policies, and when applied produce excellent articles. They benefit the editors, both new and old, and help clear up many misconceptions about our coverage of fiction and entertainment. They are good, sound advice, that is to the benefit of all. By golly, they are guidelines. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Casting and characters sections on season pages

On a season page, should the casting section be under Production or Cast and characters? And should Cast and characters sections simply be a list that states "Actor as Character" or should it be in prose and briefly describe the characters like on the show pages? --thedemonhog talk • edits 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how the page is organized. What is the page? You shouldn't have both. You can put it all in casting, or under each character in a C&C section. It really depends on what other information is there. You can do it A&C. That is how I did Smallville's main page. But you can also do a simple casting section, which is how I did the pilot episode of Smallville. It really depends on what the information is. If it's simply casting info, then you are best to have a Casting section. If it has other information, like an actor's take on the character, then it may work better the other way...then again you may just prefer a casting section that encompasses that too. Halloween (1978 film) puts all of it in a casting section. It's preference, but it's also, "what is the best organizer".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I decided to go with prose for the characters section on Lost (season 4). What I mean with the casting section is should the page look like this or this? --thedemonhog talk • edits 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

X-Files experts here? William Gibson's "The X-Files" episodes needs attention

I noticed that two episodes are combined into one article at William Gibson's "The X-Files" episodes, and episodes aren't usually (or never?) combined just because they have the same writer. This seems to be the best place to ask. 172.188.223.135 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen someone organize the information like this, but it actually might be a good idea. Right now I'm on my lunch break, and can't really look up much about it, so I might be wrong, but certainly an idea worth considering. Episodes might be notable for different reasons, which might affect how we organize them. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs Task Force

I'd like to see a task force for Scrubs (TV series). Can I just create one or does it require consensus, etc? Caissa's DeathAngel 14:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you can just create one.--Opark 77 09:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming an article

There is a discussion over at Buffy the Vampire Slayer over the name of the article. Some people feel the article should be named as it is, while the competing opinion is that it should be named Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series), per naming conventions. The film with the same title has "(film)" attached, and it came first. Please see the discussion at Talk: Buffy the Vampire Slayer#Page move.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy episode descriptions removed

I just had to remove all episode descriptions from Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 1), Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 2), Grey's Anatomy episodes (Season 3) because they were blatant copyright violations from http://www.onlygreysanatomy.com (and other sites). I suspect that other popular series' episode descriptions are also in violation. AxelBoldt 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The domain "onlygreysanatomy.com" was registered 2007-05-15, but the synopses supposedly copied from that shoddy website have been around since March 2006 (going by the season one article). Ergo I suspect it's not Wikipedia doing the copying, but rather Wikipedia that's being copied. Matthew 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, they copied from us, but many of our episode descriptions were copied from http://www.greys-anatomy.com . All the descriptions there are attributed to ABC.com and the Internet Archive shows them to be older than our text. AxelBoldt 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

TV Squad as a reliable source

I believe TV Squad is a reliable source for television information, but they use the word blog so I'd like help making a determination. They're a part of Weblogs, Inc., like Engadget. This National Business Review article says about Engadget "If that sounds like a magazine, it should. Although it looks like a blog and acts like a blog, Engadget is a webzine (web-based magazine) dressed up like a blog." It says of Weblogs, Inc., "the content areas are covered by people who treat content production as a job." Also, that "An expert writes alone or in conjunction with others about a "hot" topic (gadgets, say), links to outside material and solicits feedback from the readership." They describe the system as "artificially-viral" and as a "blog-like, content-specific, web-only publication." TV Squad is indexed by google news. According to the Weblogs, Inc. site, they're "bloggers" are paid, they have a team of editors, and have a clear separation between advertising and editors. Their also part of AOL now. That's all the info I've been able to find so far, Peregrine Fisher 17:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would not call TV Squad a reliable source. -- Ned Scott 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Why not? - Peregrine Fisher 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I might be thinking of a different site. -- Ned Scott 02:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
They may-well be reliable for factual information, but they're hardly an independent third party source being a unit of AOL. I would not dispute the citation of a factual detail from such a site - at least not without other cause than the source - but I would not count their having a page on an individual episode or character as severing to establish notability. Sites such as this aim to cover every bit of minutiae about tv; they amount to a "phonebook". --Jack Merridew 11:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
How does being part of AOL make them not independant? - Peregrine Fisher 18:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
AOL is a piece of AOL-Time-Warner which is a huge media company and TV is one of their vectors. They have a serious bias towards promoting TV - didn't the site list itself as part of AOL Television? (not going to look again). Linking to their pages in an extern or references section should be fine and useful to some readers. I would consider it a somewhat reliable source for factual details but please don't view them as a source to establish notability. It is really a fan-site — or, better, a fan-predation site. --Jack Merridew 11:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
They don't look to reliable for factual information, as they don't provide sources for where they get their information (kind of like IMDb). Even if they are used for a review, 1 single review isn't going to establish notability, and they didn't appear to carry enough "factual" information about a given episode to provide enough OOU info for that either, regardless of whether you accept them as equivalent to IMDb or reliable enough to cite alone.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I was thinking of details such as episode titles, capitalisations and the like. Probably best then to avoid using them in a references section. You may be onto something with your OOU comment; this lack is key to dismissing a site as a "fan site". --Jack Merridew 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of the reviews (as I noted) do come off as pure fannish (even when they are negative). Sometimes they provide some useful analysis. I'd say that I wouldn't have a problem if someone wanted to use one for the reception section (because it alone isn't going to make any article notable, but it would help to show varying opinions of the show), but that we just pay attention to how it is used. This is a problem with even the most respected critics like Roger Ebert, where editors read a review and pick some peacock term like "John Clark thought Heroes episode X was 'outstanding!'". I don't care if Ebert and Roeper said the same thing, it wouldn't be acceptable per NPOV, but I could see usefulness if there was actual critiquing of the episode going on. I didn't see a lot of that in the reviews, but that doesn't mean it isn't there somewhere. If we look at it with a cynical eye--AOL owns it so it will be bias--then does that mean if Microsoft buys out some of the most reliable gaming review sites that we will have to dismiss all those sites since they would be owned by a corporation that releases video games? From what I was reading on the FAQ page, the reviewers themselves appear to be outside critics. It doesn't state that explicetly, so don't hold me to it. I think it should probably be a case-by-case (or in this case--pardon the repetativeness--a review-by-review) basis. It should be clear if the review is nothing but hogwash, and simply peacockish opinions (i.e. "Outstanding", "Best Episode Ever!!!", etc), in which case I'd say it needs to go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you hoping to use them for reviews? I've been reading some of the Smallville reviews and I tend to read like fans of the show voicing their disgust or praise for a particular episode. It seems to run that way with others shows (when I click a "reviewers" name and get other reviews they've written). Checking out their FAQ page, it seems that they have a "staff", but that it is more like bloggers send in their stuff and if TV Squad likes it then they become part of their staff (at least, that is what I'm gathering from reading the FAQ page that basically talks about not being able to review every show but if there is enough requests they will find someone to cover it). It just makes me weary to use on a professional scale, but I guess you can look at it like "we allow IGN and Moviehole, which are basically the same thing." We may be able to disregard that "blogger" terminology, since they are paid bloggers (at least I hope they are paid, that really didn't get mentioned anywhere that I could find...maybe we should check for that).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I just read the review for the Smallville season six finale and I'm wondering if other reviews are like that. It was pretty much unusable for Wikipedia, because it didn't do anything but say things like: "this was cool, this should have happened earlier, this sucked." It's hardly an analyzation of the episode. I haven't read any more, but are you finding any reviews that are worth anything? They have a list of bloggers, so you might find something better with a different blogger, but I got my analyzation from Kryptonsite's reviewer "Triplett", who usually disects almost every aspect of an episode down to costume design.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Some reviews are better than others. Is kryptonsite a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't use Kryptonsite for anything unless it's a personal interview (because that's a primary source), because they usually do the "it was officially annouced that...," and that isn't reliable enough. Craig Bryne (webmaster) has written 2 of the official companion books (and is working on a third). He's also listed on either John Glover or John Schneider's official website as the go-to, so the site itself is reputable for the show (would you consider it the "official fansite"? I don't know). I think I used a Craig Bryne review once, but he doesn't review a lot, he's usually busy with other things. Here's a Triplet review of "Reckoning". I don't know if it would be acceptable, because I have never used her before. She's a professional reviewer (at least she identifies herself as a paid one, and I assume she does it for other organizations based on her occassional side-chatter in some of her reviews). Anyway, she usually goes into more technical aspects of the show, beyond those "I liked this," but unless I find an actual analysis, then I'd be skeptical to use her. The same for TV Squad. I guess my only concern would be abuse of it when the only reviewer of the episode has nothing more to say that "this is a good episode" (boiled down). If you can find reviewers that actually write something that can be used (I wouldn't use every critic that Rotten Tomatoes puts in its "Cream of the Crop", because they can sometimes say simple things like "great movie!!" and then move on) then I'd support its inclusion. I would think that it would need make sure it was in line with WP:NPOV's "fitness of tone" section, which basically says that yes we can verify reliably that Critic X said this movie was awesome, but the tone itself would not be neutral. Otherwise, we'd have reception sections that boiled down to "Critic X like the episode/film, but Critic Y hated the episode/film." Did that make sense?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) This Nemesis review goes into more detail. I agree the reckoning review doesn't have much useful info. I think just like the movie reviews that rotten tomatoes uses, some are going to be better than others. - Peregrine Fisher 19:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, I think their FAQ page explicitely stated they were not an episode recap site, and that Reckoning review was just a recap, but yeah it's that sort of thing. The only big thing I saw in the Nemesis review was how you could probably mentioning the reviewer talking about how the writers worked up the Clark/Lex dynamic. Anyway, it would depend on what is found. Review wise, I'd say as long as you can find some analysis to use, more power to you. I did find some "factoids" about Smallville's next season, and the look exactly like what's at Kryptonsite (which I won't use, because they don't say where they got it). I don't know where TV Squad go there's either, because they don't say...so I'd be reluctant to use any of that type of information for fear that it's really equivalent to using IMDb's trivia page that contains the same thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Carnivàle FAC

Carnivàle has been an FAC for a month now (moving to close), and it has been suffering from chronic non-comments for a while. (I guess part of the reason is that the show is too obscure and was cancelled too long ago to be in the public mind any longer.) A request at WP League of Copyeditors to have a look at the article has not been acted on (I know, they have a lot to do; I don't blame them). I am posting here to ask whether someone could spare a few minutes and give the article an extra pair of eyes. FAC comments are always appreciated (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carnivàle). Thanks. – sgeureka t•c 12:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Wood As Seen On TV

In the past few weeks I've significantly changed this entry. Proof read it, had images apply to fair use law and added a lot more information. Any chance of another rating? bingo99 12 September 2007 10:06 (UTC)

The next level up is GA status, which can be achieved through the WP:GAC process. My first impression is that it looks good, but details need adding to references. Also, I see references to blogs, which are not reliable sources, and there is even a reference to Wikipedia (we don't use ourselves as references). The JPStalk to me 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've removed the blog and Wikipedia sources and the info they provided. Also I've changed the citations significantly so they're in keeping with Wikipedia:Citation templates. Any chance of another look? - bingo99 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had another look over as well. Comments here.--Opark 77 08:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has now received 'Good Article' status. I'd be keen for it to be peer-reviewed again, in a hope of it reaching A-Class status, then hopefully Featured Article status. Thanks in advance for any advice or help. - bingo99 20:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Three Stooges Taskforce

I was thinking that a Three Stooges Taskforce should be created to help expand and clean-up stooge-related articles. The Three Stooges, in my eyes, are an important part of television. They made 190 Shorts with Columbia. Most, probably all have been shown televison. Not to mention their cartoon series, appearances on shows such as Scooby Doo.

Just my 2 Cents,

DTGardner 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

News themes

While I love to know more about news themes and think that they could have their own articles and that Wikipedia should have an article on just about everything that people want to know about (why wouldn't it?), the general population of Wikipedia doesn't feel the same way. I noticed that many of the news theme articles (i.e. The X-2 Package, FOX O&O News Theme, etc), are tagged as not being verifiable/notable/referenced/whatever. While they've been marked since July, it's inevitable that someone will notice it and AfD them. So anyway, if I were you, I'd consider a "News theme" article with a link to a "List of news themes" or something like that if AfDs come around. My 2 cents. Peace, --MPD T / C 03:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Google just showed me the "List of television news theme packages", which is also tagged as not worthy of Wiki. I'd suggest expanding that list with info found in the articles. I work at USRD, and if we can manage to defeat an AfD on lists of thousands of roads, there's probably a way to make it work here. --MPD T / C 03:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference Data from episodes

I started working on a completely rework of Da Rules article, since it is a total mess. One problem I got when decided to deal with it is a total lack of references. When stating the rules it has, the only source I have for it are the Episodes I've seen, therefore I think it caracterizes as WP:OR. Can I go with it, or what should I do? Samuel Sol 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You can cite an episode for an event that takes place, for instance, you can say "Jane Doe is in love with John Doe.<ref>Episode X, quote:"Jane Doe - 'I love you John Doe'."</ref>" That make sense? If you are stating something that is objective, and doesn't require analysis, then you can cite the episode. For the article in question, if they actually said "Fairy godparents are powerless inside a butterfly net," is a rule in the actual rulebook, then you would cite the episode that occurred in. But, if it is insinuated, but not expressly stated, I'd have to say that it would be original research to cite the episode, because it may not have been the intention to make that a "rule".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It indeed is a stated rule inside the episode, so I should be clear. Thanks for the help. But in this case, the article will be without any external references, isn't that a problem? Samuel Sol 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
External links to sources are not necessary, or mandatory. Though most editors probably prefer that, because they are easier to verify, you could technically write an article (a featured article at that) based completely on journals, books, and other written text. It is not any editor's obligation to make all/any source a website (if they are, then it is helpful, but don't think you cannot use 20 books to write an article and that it will be condemned, that is why we have public libraries).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am currently writing a fiction article where a fictional book is important for understanding the whole mythology of the series (Mythology of Carnivàle, see refs there). I found that it is indeed best to do what Bignole described above: reference a rule with the episode name and a quote unless the rule itself is the quote. All other rules should either be removed as OR or grouped and summarized (e.g. "Da Rules has rules for naughty children, for example..." without going into more detail), unless you find producers/media repeating or explaining them. But I really endorse the merge tag in the article. WP doesn't need a list of all rules - maybe summarize the significance of this book and merge, then find an external link to a fansite that lists all these rules? (Without a merge, this article desperately needs third-party references to establish notability. Just see what you can find, and if it isn't worth it, be bold in merging.) – sgeureka t•c 17:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As I posted on that talk page I do agree with the merge too. Although I think it is important to state the rules, and there are really few of them across the episodes, it is just that on the article they expand each in a mad way. Samuel Sol 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the cite episode template can be useful to cite specific episodes. There is a link on the wikiproject main page. I agree with Bignole if the info is evident from the episode then citing the episode as a primary source is fine. When inferences are made using the content of the episode that constitutes original research. You're right that articles with only primary sources of one type are not ideal, but they are not unacceptable. What I mean is its Ok to cite just primary sources when you can't find any secondary sources.--Opark 77 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As Opark stated, you can have just primary sources, but, the kicker is that primary sources generally do not establish notability, or any type of significance. So, the article may be well sources, but it could also be entirely in-universe, trivial, or something else if there are no secondary sources explaining why it needs an entire page to itself. So, just take into consideration the topic at hand, and you can figure that out. Having no secondary sources is probably a big reason why the Da Rules page is proposed for merger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Police Camera Action!

This article needs extensive work, and there needs to be a List of Police Camera Action! episodes. I'm not really sure how to do such an article on this, so if you can advise me that would be great! This could be a featured article if any editors are willing to work with me to get it to that standard. Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 10:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost every article on wikipedia needs a lot of work. If you want to improve an article yourself, have a look at other articles of the same format. A good place to start would be Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles; they will give you plenty of ideas. And as long as there is no extensive information for the episodes, there is no need to create a new list for the episodes immediately. (Common sense will be helpful to determine the right time.) – sgeureka t•c 10:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sgeureka. I am not really an expert on this show, despite being a fan of it, so if anyone else who knows a bit more can help I would appreciate this. The talk-page isn't really getting much discussion: how do I get more people discussing there?? Thanks, --Solumeiras talk 11:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It sometimes takes some days or even weeks to get a reply on talk pages of obscure subjects, but don't let that discourage you from improving the article. My best advice is to look how other articles deal with information or problems, and adept their style. I replied on the article's talkpage and put it on my watchlist. If you have further questions, you can ask there, as it is more likely that more people who are interested in the program will see it there instead of on this wiki project. – sgeureka t•c 12:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out COPS (TV series) it's of a similar topic, a reasonably well construed article, but not the most expansive of them. And see some of the other FA rated Television articles mentioned here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Completed" and "ongoing" series OR User:Loansince

Just recently, a Wikipedia user, Loansince, has started adding these terms ("completed" and "ongoing"), to describe television programs in the first sentences of their articles. (Example: "The Brady Bunch is a completed American television situation comedy, based around a large blended family." [my emphasis].)

To me that just doesn't sound right, and feels unnecessary. The user claims that the terms make it quickly apparant that the show is no longer in production or is still being produced. However, in most of the articles he/she has edited, this info is provided in the following sentences.

You can read some of the user's comments and those of other editors (who feel the same as I) here:

Oh, and you can see their contributions here: Special:Contributions/Loansince

I see that I am not alone is feeling that these terms are unnecessary/redundant. What does everyone else think about this? -NatureBoyMD 01:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-standard, pointless, doesn't achieve what the editor is hoping and doesn't read very well. I've already begun to remove them. --Ckatzchatspy 01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the initiative on this, on behalf of all Wikipedians who think verb tenses provide entirely enough information as to whether the show is still in production - "The Brady Bunch was", but "Heroes is"... JTRH 01:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem - it just looks bad with "completed". One thing to keep in mind - the correct form is still "The Brady Bunch is" - as a creative work the show is considered to exist until such time as it is destroyed. (For example, some of the old Doctor Who episodes that were erased no longer exist, and would use "was".) The trick is to structure the lead accordingly - "BB is a sitcom that aired from x to x" for example. --Ckatzchatspy 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're always supposed to use "is," even when a show is no longer running. - Peregrine Fisher 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was specifically referring to the use of is/was as it pertains to production. Obviously, the show still exists after it's finished its original broadcasts. The person who's inserted "completed" into the pages on old shows has also been dropping "ongoing" into the ones on current shows, which is equally redundant and unnecessary.JTRH 01:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with Ckatz above. Loansince already has shown an unwillingness to seek consensus and has restored reverted changes several times. &#151;Whoville 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Loansince's position. What makes a show completed? What about a TV show that was planned to go for six seasons but was cancelled after 2 years? It's neither completed nor ongoing. If Loansince continues to deliberately act against consensus, like he did half an hour ago,[11][12] I think a temporary block is in order to sort this out. – sgeureka t•c 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, some edits you like, some edits you don't like. And while you disagree with them, doesn't mean they don't belong, no matter how much you cry about it. The point is, if I think the edit belongs and it is nto vandalism or anything incorrect, I can put it there. I am sure as heck not going back and reverting all of those edits and it will take a looooooooooooooooooooooooot of work to go back behind me and revert all those 'completed' and 'ongoing' comments. Anyone can edit wikipedia so you can go back behind me and do it if you like. Enjoy that long hard task, but I refuse to discuss this topic or come back to this page any longer because I think the topic is stupid Loansince 06:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the above post from Loansince definitely constitutes an unwillingness to seek consensus. I agree that the terms are unnecessary and redundant (as long as the leads provide the information later) and we should remove them. Doesn't removing posts from a talk page (even your own) constitute vandalism? What steps can we take to encourage Loansince to rethink his resistance to engaging in discussion?--Opark 77 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Lots of belligerence, petulance and incivility from Loansince in barely 24 hours. However, the guidelines for user pages state that there's no policy against removing content from your own talk page. See WP:UP:
Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history.
In the context of this issue, I think it's poor etiquette and shows bad faith. &#151;Whoville 10:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Whoville.--Opark 77 10:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's gotten worse. JTRH 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I went and reverted most of his "completed"/"ongoing" additions about an hour ago. I let him know (again) about consensus and certain *alternatives* on his talkpage. He has not added more such words into articles, so I'd say this issue is settled for now, but I'll keep a close eye on his edits for a few days. – sgeureka t•c 10:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Likewise - I've cleaned up what feels like about two hundred or so articles. Hopefully, that's all of them. --Ckatzchatspy 17:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
He's been indefinitely blocked. JTRH 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We should keep in mind that he probably felt that he was doing what is best for Wikipedia. He did not make nonsense edits or blank any pages. While he should be blocked for a little while for repeatedly ignoring consensus, an indefinite block seems a bit harsh. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 23:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
To say that he was uncivil in responding to requests for discussion is putting it mildly. JTRH 01:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't speak to whether or not it is accurate, but the indefinite block appears to be based on charges of abuse of multiple accounts following a checkuser request, and not just because of the television articles. --Ckatzchatspy 00:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Meerkat Manor

While looking up info for the show, I discovered that this article appears to be almost completely under the control of a 12 year old child, with help from a few 13 and 14 year olds. He appears to be completely dominating any and all edits to the article and not really allowing any one else to deal with it (though he does seem to have relented on the issue of wanting spoiler tags). The article itself is mostly okay, but it could use work (particularly the families section). I also really think it would benefit from an adult taking the article in hand to help control things. I'm not a fan of the show myself, so I thought I would post here to see if someone from the WikiProject for Television might want to take on the tasks.

As a side question, what is Wikipedia's policies regarding children editors? I would think there might be issues with those under 13 because of federal laws?Collectonian 07:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave Meerkat Manor a cursory look, and it seems to be a typical wikipedia TV show page (i.e. lacking referneces). If you could give some examples of the problems with the page (with difs?), that would be good.
I don't think we have any policies saying children can't edit. I think there may be policies that prohibit providing personal information, especially for children, although I don't know if they ever gained consensus. If you think a child may be in some danger, someone should probably be notified. If a child is just editing incorrectly, we should probably try and help them edit correctly. - Peregrine Fisher 07:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It is mostly minor things, grammar, spelling, needs some formatting fixes, etc. I also noticed the one child who had taken control tended to revert edits without bothering to explain why. One such revert was done twice (someone "correcting" the spelling of Commandos) and the person doing it had no idea why, but I was able to explain from a quick glance that the article was using the UK spellings as its is the show's country of origin.
It looks like Ckatz went through and gave it some good touching up. Thanks. I'm not a huge fan of the show (liked the first season, but got bored with the added melodrama), but I thought it deserved a decent quality article :) Collectonian 14:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
If you look at some recent edits, you'll see one of the biggest issues. Despite being told repeatedly that Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone, Cruise meerkat will not let anyone post anything they construe as a spoiler, including episode summaries for episodes that have already aired. Collectonian 23:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to anyone who came over to help clean up! As you might guess, I ended up doing more on this thing than I ever planned. :P Collectonian 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone would like to weight in, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Original_Research_and_Spoilers regarding spoilers in non-fiction show articles. More importantly, it is a discussion of what outside resource (if any) can/should be used when discussing the subjects of documentary series to provide additional information about the subjects/"stars" of the show, or if additional information is relevant at all to the article. Collectonian 04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Airdate/End date source

I wanted to ask, can the airdates/end dates posted on TV.com be considered reliable enough for referencing? If not, then do we have a major reliable source for them? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 20:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, TV.com is equivalent to IMBd, and generally unacceptable. TV Guide has a website where you can usually find airdates for episodes, though older shows generally lack a lot of information. If it's a new show, I'd look there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
So, TVguide.com can be trusted? —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know they can be. You have to be careful with some shows, because I found that they listed multiple airings (like when the Smallville pilot aired a couple times before the series actually began) which can throw off the total number of episodes aired, but the dates themselves are based on what I would assume to be network information. I mean, their little TV Guide magazine was the source for television start times before cable and satellite started using that scrolling box.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. —May the Edit be with you, always. (T|C) 21:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_6&oldid=1137363191"