Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Television:
To do list: edit - history - watch - purge
Major discussions/events:
  • Contribute to a discussion on whether series overviews should be kept in episode lists by clicking here.


There is a disagreement at Penn and Teller: Bullshit! over whether to use quotation marks around the word "bullshit" alone. Since this article falls under this Wikiproject umbrella, you may want to weigh in on that Talk Page. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

4:3 ?[edit]

We have a 16:9 article (and 21:9 aspect ratio), but there's no 4:3 aspect ratio article. Seems like a very big hole in our coverage, considering how common it is and how much more so it was. -- (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

4:3 is covered at Aspect ratio (image)#4:3 standard. --AussieLegend () 08:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Primetime Emmy Nominations are out[edit]

Complete list: EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Is there any set format on how to list awards/nominations? I was trying to add the new Emmy nominations to some cartoon articles and saw a large variety of how the sections were structured. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've seen them formatted as tables, prose or both. I like using both, so you can convey things you want that you can't in a table while still having one for casual readers. This is also the same kind of format used in lists of awards by television series. 23W 02:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@23W: Okay! I prefer tables myself (especially when there are more than a handful of awards), but I'm fine with either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski New Girl guest appearance verification?[edit]

I am having difficulty determining if a guest appearance actually happened. Please comment at Talk:Emily_Ratajkowski#New_Girl_Season_3_episode_2 if you can help.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazing Race season articles...[edit]

I just want to see others' opinions on the current article naming structure used in The Amazing Race season pages as it really is a mess... Currently it is set up with a number to represent the season such as "The Amazing Race 1". This however is very disorganised and creates many problems.

Take this for example: There is a Latin American version of the show that had been titled as "The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel" for seasons 1 and 2. However the title has since been simplified to just "The Amazing Race".

  • The parent article is at present "The Amazing Race (Latin America)"
  • The season articles is where it gets confusing as it seems to imply that there had been two different shows...
    • The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 1 and The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 2 ....Versus...
    • The Amazing Race 3 (Latin America) and The Amazing Race 4 (Latin America)

Another being the Viernamese version were it is titled by year:

  • The Amazing Race Vietnam 2012, The Amazing Race Vietnam 2013, The Amazing Race Vietnam 2014

Wouldn't it be neater if each article was simply known by its parent article and its season number as it is common in other articles for other reality shows.

  • The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 1 –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 1)
  • The Amazing Race en Discovery Channel 2 –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 2)
  • The Amazing Race 3 (Latin America) –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 3)
  • The Amazing Race 4 (Latin America) –> The Amazing Race (Latin America season 4)
  • The Amazing Race Vietnam 2012 –> The Amazing Race Vietnam (season 1)
  • The Amazing Race Vietnam 2013 –> The Amazing Race Vietnam (season 2)
  • The Amazing Race Vietnam 2014 –> The Amazing Race Vietnam (season 3)


  • The Amazing Race Asia 2 –> The Amazing Race Asia (season 2), etc.

The numbers and the years seem to imply that that is those are the show's actual titles when in fact they aren't ... This has been brought up several times on the various Anazing Race talk pages but have gone nowhere and has only been discussed with few editors so I thought I'd ask here... : ) Many thanks! :D

--Kartoffel 07 10:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I think what you have proposed seems good, and would put all the articles in correct alignment to how the projects states we should name articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to change last_aired parameter instructions[edit]

Comments requested at Template talk:Infobox television#Proposal to change last_aired parameter instructions.

Basically: Do we need to require sources for series end dates as we have been doing, which often results in shows being designated as "present" forever, or can we allow last_aired dates to be added if no pickup is announced at the next upfront, or if the show goes silent for NN months?

I'm hoping to encourage clarification in the documentation one way or another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Series Finale revisited[edit]

Hey all, looking to establish a clear definition for what constitutes a "series finale"? This affects numerous article and often appears in the headers of series overview boxes.

  • Definition 1: The literal, final episode to be broadcast in a television series, regardless of intention or circumstance.
  • Definition 2: A planned final episode, typically promoted as a special event.
  • Definition 3: ??

I previously raised this question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 3#Series Finale and a couple of editors replied, but I wanted to get more discussion going.

There was some back and forth about this at Sam & Cat recently because the series was canceled toward the end of its second season. Nick decided to air the last two produced episodes and call it a day. Does this constitute a finale? Another example: I recently reverted this good-faith edit by Anthonyg328. In this scenario, Nickelodeon basically stopped airing new episodes of Fanboy in December 2011. Ten months later, Nick burned off most of the remaining episodes except for "Brain Freeze", which had been released to DVD early in Season 2. Over a year and a half later, in July 2014, they finally aired "Brain Freeze". What might be worth noting also, is the Brain Freeze was produced early in the season, which makes calling it a "series finale" all the more odd to me.

Calling the first episode in a series a "premiere" make sense to me, because it is typically a planned and promoted event, and there is a "specialness" to it (which is probably why we use the fancy French word). Final episodes are not always planned or promoted events, because shit happens. There is also an inherent specialness to "finale", because now suddenly we're speaking Italian. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If I had my druthers, I'd just avoid the loaded terms "premiere" and "finale" all together and just label the first episode "first episode" and the last episode "last episode" as is supported in the series infobox first_aired, last_aired. Sometimes the first aired episode is labeled "Preview" and the second time it is aired it is labeled "Premiere". The final episode aired may or may not be a designed series "finale". Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I know that there are precedents for both found all over the project. For example at All Grown Up! the overview lists First air date and Last air date. It may be worth noting that I picked several TV-related Featured Articles at random, and none of the seven that I selected had overviews. (1234567) Perhaps a coincidence. And GP, I believe you helped me out of a mental roadblock as well, because I've been under the impression for a while that the start of a season is its "premiere", when, for our purposes the "first_aired" parameter should list the first airing in its primary market. Articles are inconsistent and I think we should clarify that as well at Template:Infobox television.Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I bold edited Template:Infobox television/doc to remove the only mention of "finale". See if it sticks. This is a problem when jargon conflicts with common usage. We should avoid jargon terms when that happens and use plain descriptive words. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
This topic is in danger of dropping off, but I'd like to get some other input about this since the concept affects so many articles. I'm going to drop invites to some of our regulars. I know Bignole and DonIago contributed their thoughts at the MOS talk page. My goal is to get some clear guidance on the usage of Premiere and Finale as opposed to First aired and Last aired, because I do think there is an implied difference that is not covered by the literal definition. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Canadian TV Guide ceases, link rot warning[edit]

TC Transcontinental recently pulled the plug on the Canadian version of TV Guide, and with it, a ton of articles that were syndicated on The Loop. According to someone who had contacted one of the former editors, the articles were entirely deleted (which blows my mind a little). I've started scraping cached versions of their articles from Google using over at my userspace. While is blacklisted from Wikipedia, and thus cannot be used as an archive URL, it's still useful for expanding articles. If you're able to scrape more cached versions of their articles, please do. 23W 00:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Literature Online Access[edit]

Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Proper move of Clarence (2014 TV series)?[edit]

Spin Boy 11 recently moved the page Clarence (2014 TV series) to Clarence (animated series). I've never seen animated series articles disambiguated like this before; is this proper? I started a discussion on the talk page here. 23W 21:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back as it's contrary to WP:NC:TV. Clarence is a disambiguation page so normal disambiguation rules would have the article at Clarence (TV series) but, since that is a redirect to the disambiguation page and because Clarence (1988 TV series) exists, Clarence (2014 TV series) is the appropriate location for this article. WP:NC:TV suggests that Clarence (animated TV series) is acceptable, although not preferred over Clarence (2014 TV series), but Clarence (animated series) is wrong. --AussieLegend () 21:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Anarchy with regard to the UK[edit]

There's been a little back and forth at The Amazing World of Gumball, which sparked this query. I made some edits a while back where I'd removed from the infobox the United Kingdom as a nation of origin, because the United Kingdom isn't a nation. I tidied up a little and I think it was determined that an Irish company had originally been a coproducer for the series, then later an English company. Anyhow, Holiday56 changed England back to United Kingdom in the infobox, and the lead to Irish-British-American, both of which I disagree with, but they did helpfully point out in this edit that United Kingdom is used in a variety of articles as the nation of origin, for example at Mr. Bean. My question is, why? How is it of value to be vague about the nation of origin if we can be specific? I can perhaps understand using United Kingdom if all four member regions are involved, but otherwise, specificity makes sense to me. Does a dude have a "British" accent or an "English" accent?

Bigger issues: Are we getting a little overboard with the micro-specific hyphenations? "XYZ is an American-English-Australian-Canadian animated series." Should we cap these at three or something? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka UK is valid in the nation attribute as it is the sovereign state. Individual countries in the UK may be more specific just as individual US states would be more specific, but we should use the top level legal sovereign entity for this type of info which in this case is UK. Only exception I am aware of is in bio articles country seems more important but that varies based on the article and is an exception as country identity seems really important to a lot of Britons for personal identity. As for multiple countries of origin, assuming somewhat equal participation (not just filmed there, but co-production), they should be separated with WP:NDASH, definitely not hyphens, as the first does not modify the second, all ordering has same meaning, and the n-dash basically means "and" in the context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Accent comment parallel does a person have an "American" accent or a "Texas" accent. Just levels of specificity. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Though I'm still a little confused, because the US states are not considered countries, whereas Wales, England and Scotland are literal countries, I stand corrected. Thanks, GP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Country and State mean basically the same thing as well, but the US uses "state" as its major subentity, and the UK uses "country" as its major subentity. Variations in meanings based on context and national usage, mostly based on historical usage. US states started out as separate sovereign entities and evolved over time to component parts but still kept the name. Likewise in the UK for component countries or kingdoms. Both the US and UK are Sovereign states in international usage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for FYI (TV network)[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, FYI (TV network), has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spshu (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And if there is an administrator here, both article were incorrectly move to (TV network) when they should have remain named as (TV channel). Spshu (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, they are networks, not channels. A channel is what they are carried on. Ironically, the page you just linked actually supports the naming convention you do not. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Um, no, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting): "Networks provide content over one or more channels, and broadcast by one or more independently-owned stations." "Articles about channels should use (radio channel) or (TV channel)." No station is involved so it is a channel. A cable network on WC-BC indicates for cable a "network" is a provider of multiple channels, so A+E Network is the network and A&E and FYI are both channels. --Spshu (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)